discussion 3

Willie McClendon

Roles of evidence often preclude the use of relevant, truthful evidence that someone said or wrote outside of the courtroom because it's portrayed as hearsay. Hearsay is any statement made outside of court that is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay isn't reliable evidence because it could have come from a person talking to another about the situation but fabricating it or just joking about it. And if the evidence was admissible most be proving to be reliable.

I think exclusion of this type of evidence helps the judicial process and interest of justice because it prevents unreliable evidence or testimony to be resented. If someone was testifying against me I would want them to speak the facts not speculation and and a reliable person. After all that testimony may make or break the decision. 

William Osborne

When evidence that is as important and relevant to a specific  case as someone saying something or writing something own about it, I think that it is very important that the evidence that has been stated should make its appearance in court. The fact that some of the evidence about the specific case is left out and almost replaced with a precedent is crazy. The facts of the specific case is very important and could almost cost someone their free life. I think the exclusion of these things in a case could hinder the judicial process by making it based off of a generalization instead of making it based off of the specific case.