>In one case, West claimed to have matched the bite marks in a half-eaten bologna sandwich to the defendant. The jury convicted. (The conviction was overturned on appeal when defense lawyers discovered that the autopsy report recorded a partial bologna sandwich in the stomach of the victim.)
In my experience, the defense asked specific questions related to this exact topic and sought out jurors who agreed that police testimony is not guaranteed to be factual. I have to assume this is common. They had no problem filling the juror box with jurors approved by both sides.
There are two kinds of witness testimony - the most common is where a witness sees a stranger and testifies about it. Those have little credibility.
But there's another kind, where the witness actually knows the person, those are far more credible. Historically only this type was permitted, but over time things seem to have shifted to the first type.
Of course this is the case, but rather than lying, I think it is only a consequence of selection bias. You don't see the experts rejected by the prosecution (or defence) for opinions that aren't helpful, because of course they won't be invited to testify.
> Hearsay is testimony about a declarant's statement outside of court.
Yes, and in your first example, Bob's statement is outside of court, and Jane's description of it is admissible. (Same as how mattis's description of Trump's admission would be admissible)
There are also cases where Jack's statement would be admissible (for example if Jane was unable to be called as a witness).
No, a statement is not evidence no matter how much you want it to be. A _sworn testimony_ of a _witness_ is evidence. But there can't really be any witness here, unless the person on the other end was extremely careless. So you get a bunch of hot air and unsubstantiated allegations which will never go anywhere.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/theranos-patient-says-blood-...
reply