Active Users:211 Time:28/03/2024 08:32:07 AM
Funny coincidence regarding Kavanaugh & Better Call Saul (non spoiler allusion to this week's ep) Cannoli Send a noteboard - 07/10/2018 04:46:12 AM

I finally got around this morning to watching this week's episode of "Better Call Saul." In it, a character made an allusion to the Supreme Court case of Crawford v Washington in 2004, when the show is apparently set. In that case, the court ruled without any dissenting justices, against the prosecution's use of a statement to the police on the rationale that confronting one's accuser is such an important right, and that statements which could not be cross-examined could not be used as evidence. Though it applies to a rather narrow area of evidence in trials, the principle on which the case was based is that you can't just accept a statement without questioning and testing it. As Scalia states in his writing for the majority, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty."

Written months ago, and filmed weeks ago at the earliest, I doubt the producers of "Better Call Saul" had any idea how relevant the universally agreed upon principle of challenging an accuser would be on and about the airdate of the episode. While one end of the political spectrum sought to deny Brett Kavanaugh that right, his future colleagues and predecessor, at least, understand it.

Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Funny coincidence regarding Kavanaugh & Better Call Saul (non spoiler allusion to this week's ep) - 07/10/2018 04:46:12 AM 174 Views

Reply to Message