----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:00 PM Subject: Re: No more Miranda?
>
>
> > =====================
> >
> > How can you know the admission is true if it's
> > coerced?
>
> That goes to weight, not admissibility. The plaintiff
> wants to keep the admission out under the exclusionary
> rule because he wasn't Mirandized. If I was the judge,
> I'd say the exclusionary rule doesn't apply here here,
> let it in, and let the parties argue the likelihoods.
==================
Sound like his attorney chose a bad strategy on that score........
>
> The guy was shot in the face. If I was shot
> > in the face I'd be saying anything to a cop using
> > his power to interfere with pain relief to get me
> > to talk. How about you? Or would you be thinking
> > about the correspondence theory of truth at that
> > point?
>
> That might be a very telling point to make to a jury.
> Shouldn't they be the ones to decide?
>
> jks
> >
==========================
" Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today I'd like to introduce to the court the testimony of three experts in the contemporary controversies in epistemology. First an expert on deflationary theories of truth, second a neo-Aristotelean, and finally a post-Popperian minimal rationalist who views bivalent logic as inadequate for understanding propositions that refer to events in biological and sociological time."
Ian