In article ,
says...

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


It is unusual

Bull****!

cite ;-)

Sure thing!

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm

http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-
discovered-evidence.html

Do you actually read the links you post?

The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo
introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)
and he 3d is talking about a new trial.

Nope, not a new trial.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:





It is unusual



Bull****!



cite ;-)



Sure thing!



http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/



http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm



http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-

discovered-evidence.html



Do you actually read the links you post?



The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo

introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)

and he 3d is talking about a new trial.



Nope, not a new trial.



The words "new trial" are even in the URL.

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, July 27, 2012 12:01:40 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 07:49:12 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:



In article ,

says...



On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:40:16 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:





It is unusual



Bull****!



cite ;-)



Sure thing!



http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v8/n1/4/



http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_...ntroducing.htm



http://www.houston-opinions.com/law-...w-trial-newly-

discovered-evidence.html



Do you actually read the links you post?



The first one was not even a US court, the second one tells you how yo

introduce evidence in the preliminary hearing (way before the trial)

and he 3d is talking about a new trial.



Nope, not a new trial.



The words "new trial" are even in the URL.

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.

It's been apparent that you are a condescending asshole.

On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:31:31 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...

It's become apparent that he has a reading comprehension issue.


It's been apparent that you are a condescending asshole.

Nope, here's the "cite":

---------------------
Holy ****! First you say that it's hearsay if there's no physical
evidence,

Holy **** is right! I never said that.

then you say it's hearsay only if it's first person,

Never said that either. It has to be first person to NOT be hearsay. You can't repeat what someone else told you they saw.

then you say that not hearsay because she didn't *SEE* anything!!!!

Wow. Never said that, but did say it *was* hearsay for her to testify about things she didn't see firsthand.
-----------------------

Among tons of other times where you simply don't understand what someone wrote, or your own linked cites which don't prove your point, but the opposite.

You have problems grasping the written word.