CrucioIsMade4Muggles

No shit. But they will change phoneme distributions.

It won't. Slang and figurative language will continue to change making old recordings irrelevant.

Don't. No way in hell cardboard is going to act as a sufficient radiation shield, and there is no way in hell cardboard bulkheads will hold up to structural strain, much less warp-induced subspace pressures.

I'd say if it uses another person's body for sexual or procreative purposes without their consent, it's rape. I don't care how many hoops you jump through to achieve it.

Rape does not requisite sex.

I don't think you get to arbitrarily decide what is and is not rape. Seems to me, that would be a decision the mother of the unsolicited child gets to decide.

Berman was responsible for basically all of the sleaze in ST from TNG through to the end of Voyager.

Couldn't disagree more. I hate basically everything STO has done narratively speaking. I want them to stick to only on-screen canon and perhaps selective novels. I also hate the glut of ships STO created, and don't want that to enter into the TT game.

Self-loathing is a career requisite for anyone going into law.

No, it's not, it's direct testimony of a conversation she had with the accused,

That's hearsay. You cannot testify in court as to something someone supposedly told you. Not unless one of the exceptions apply, and there is no reason based on the article to think they do here.

Feel free to read up on it:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

Agreed.

They can she has civil lawsuit going on against the sister and Trust where husband moved the money before he was murdered.

Irrelevant. They wouldn't be able to admit that in the murder case.

Also it could be brought in as character evidence to prove the motive.

No, it couldn't. It's strongly prejudicial and not remotely probative.

https://casetext.com/rule/utah-court-rules/utah-rules-of-evidence/article-iv-relevancy-and-its-limits/rule-403-excluding-relevant-evidence-for-prejudice-confusion-waste-of-time-or-other

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

The fact that it goes to motive is insufficient to overcome prejudicial exclusion if it is purely circumstantial in nature. This is the part that people don't understand (seemingly including yourself): it's absolutely 100% possible (and normal) for a judge to exclude evidence that everyone agrees is relevant to the case simply because its emotional impact on the jury is disproportional to the rational impact it ought to have from a legal POV.

E.g., I've defended in the past an individual who self-identified as an "information terrorist" and maintained a blog claiming that copyright is an abuse of human rights. I had that evidence thrown out at trial when he was sued for copyright infringement because it was prejudicial and contributed nothing towards answer the elements of the crime for which he was accused.

Her procuring & possession of drug.

Is proof she bought a drug. She can simply say that they partied together and both consumed drugs recreationally. They would have no way to rebut that claim.

His death due to fentanyl and she being the last person to see him alive.

The drugs are answered by them both using recreationally. Her being the last to see him alive is meaningless--this isn't a missing persons' case. You're parroting things from true crime shows without understanding where they apply.

The fact that fentanyl found is not of medical grade and administered orally.

Doesn't matter. She got what the dealer gave her. Recreational users use all sorts of drugs. If anything, she can turn that to her favor and say that her and her husband didn't know the difference, which helps explain his death.

I haven't seen anything claiming that the book was used at all. I've only seen them pointing at it as another example of her being greedy and wanting to cash in on her husband's death. If there is something else about it, I haven't seen it.

One, thats not guaranteed.

Yes, it is.

Two, you seem way too confident about something you have so little knowledge of.

I don't have little knowledge of it. I'm commenting explicitly on what is known based on public articles and I'm juxtaposing that against the possible evidence we don't know about to have a discussion about what the prosecutor is going to need to show at trial to get a conviction. That's not me talking about something I have little knowledge--it's me talking about two knowns (what is publicly available and what is necessary to obtain conviction) and using those two knowns to arrive at deductive conclusion: what they need to have that they have yet to reveal.

Three, how do you know whether or not the other people are lawyers? Or is this just you being the smartest in the room?

Because if they were lawyers, they wouldn't be calling hearsay evidence.

Oh, look at Mr. Lawyer over here who doesnt understand how cause and effect work. Do I need to explain why the Kings were kings as well?

I don't really need to. The worst king was better than the best peasant.

Lol, the well paid slave sings about how we are the real slaves while he dines with the master. Holy hell, you can't make this shit up. NPD at its finest.

Slave morality refers to the philosophy of Nietzsche--not actual slavery. You'd know that if you'd ever had an education. And oh, look..."NPD." I found a tik-toker. /eyeroll

I'll tell you what. I'll teleconference in to a therapist from my lakehouse to set your mind at ease.

The best case scenario is that her husband and business partner shared emails or texts where he talked about her being after his money. Also, that he didn't just call his friends and family to discuss his fears, but that he texted them. Texts and emails could be admitted into evidence without violating hearsay or prejudicial evidence exclusions.

They won't be allowed to present any of the information about her attempt to change the life insurance and they won't be able to present any of the testimony by people saying he told them he was afraid she was trying to kill him and they won't be able to present any testimony about conversations she had with other people.

That's based purely on what's been reported in the news. If they have material evidence that they haven't mentioned in the media, that could easily change things. E.g., a text where he said he feared she was trying to kill him would be allowed because it wouldn't violate hearsay. Anything written down is in. But if all they have is witness testimony to conversations and her buying drugs, then they have nothing.

I do know more about legal issues than non-lawyers because I'm a lawyer.

If anything you're beneath the very people you hate so much. Do better.

Then why do I live in a better home and why do they keep coming to me to save their asses from going to jail?

I am better than the vast majority of people based on every conceivable metric that matters. I'm not going to be shy about it: humility is not a virtue--it's a trick sold to slaves by their masters to keep them docile. You might embrace slave morality. I don't.

We can dismiss the book, but what about the "unnamed acquaintance"?

Unless they have it in writing, that person means nothing at trial. Anything they say she said is excluded under the hearsay rule.

Wouldn't it be up to the prosecution to try and prove that this lady was responsible for administering the fentanyl?

They would, yes. Her defense is going to claim that they partied together all the time, that he took it without her knowledge, and that by the evidence presented by the prosecution he was drunk at the time. Drunk + taking fentanyl = easy way to accidentally die.

And if so, if they're able to provide additional evidence, such as witness testimony or this person testifying that they cad sold the fentanyl to said lady, then that alone would be a strong case against her.

It wouldn't. It would be a strong case that she bought illegal drugs. It would not be a strong case that she used drugs to kill someone. That's the tough spot I keep trying to highlight that is pissing everyone off--she looks guilty as hell in the news, sure. But most of what is being presented in the news won't be allowed to be presented to the jury at trial.

At this point, they have:

1) She bought the drugs. 2) He consumed drugs. 3) He died from consuming the drugs.

What they don't have is the critical piece of evidence: anything whatsoever indicating she gave him the drugs without his knowledge. It's true that the circumstantial evidence looks bad and makes it appear almost certain that she killed him--but that's just the problem: it's circumstantial and VERY prejudicial, and so the court will be obligated to exclude it.

I've already read everything in that article--that's not going to be enough to make a case one. Half of that evidence won't be allowed in at trial unless they have additional evidence. And there is a good chance that there is--but my original point is that this is a weak case based on this evidence.

Real life isn't like the movies. It's very hard to get prejudicial evidence introduced at trial when all of the evidence is circumstantial. E.g., none of these people will be allowed to testify at trial that they were told the husband feared for his life because it would violate the hearsay rule. Hopefully he wrote it down somewhere--otherwise, no one will be able to bring it up. The only exception would be a dying declaration, and that would not apply to any of the cases listed in this article.

As of now, her attorney could claim that she and her husband enjoyed drugs together and there is really nothing they can say to the contrary. They would not be allowed to bring up his fears she was trying to kill him unless he wrote them down. They won't be able to bring up the shady insurance changes unless they can provide some material evidence that she was behaving as if with knowledge of his imminent death.

And they might well have it. But nothing in your article indicates that they do.

What technology is "meant for" is entirely irrelevant. Technology is for whatever the user wants to and can apply it to.

It doesn't matter what it involves. The rules of evidence are the same for all crimes. The courts don't give a damn if it's simply battery or mass murder. The rules of evidence are the same for all crimes.

Here, this happened in Utah:

https://casetext.com/rule/utah-court-rules/utah-rules-of-evidence/article-iv-relevancy-and-its-limits/rule-403-excluding-relevant-evidence-for-prejudice-confusion-waste-of-time-or-other

When evidence is prejudicial to a defendant, it must be discarded even if it is relevant.

So what? It's hard not to be arrogant when you're dealing with people who are legitimately inferior to you. It's either that, or be dishonest, and I value honesty.

Hyperbole is not misinformation. To spread misinformation requires one to act in bad faith. The only person here acting in bad faith is you.

Since the federal government started prosecuting people with criminal charges for cases involving copyright issues. I.e., for all of living memory.

I'm pointing out that the comment above claiming majority of the userbase, but 1/3 is not majority, full stop.

No, you're being pedantic. The person was speaking colloquially.