Reading, Rather than Bringing, Receipts

Here’s an interesting detail from yesterday’s Hunter Biden trial.

After getting Hallie Biden’s testimony — which probably got prosecutors what they need to prove Count 3, the possession charge (though Hunter’s team will bring at least one witness to discredit Hallie’s story) — they called Joshua Marley, the second of two guys who responded to Hallie’s police report on October 23, 2018.

The first guy to respond was a guy named Vincent Clemons.

Prosecutor Derek Hines walked Marley, the second guy to respond to Hallie’s police report, through what he represented Marley had heard Hunter Biden say in response to Clemons’ questions of Hunter Biden.

Q. Was he interviewed in your presence, and did you participate in an interview with him?

A. He was interviewed in my presence, I don’t know if I participated much.

Q. How far away were you standing from him during the course of this interview?

A. If I recall correctly, just a couple of feet.

Q. Who else was with you?

A. Sergeant Clemons.

Q. Was Sergeant Clemons asking the questions and you were sort of recording the answers?

A. Correct.


Q. Do you believe he was the victim because his handgun had been stolen, or was that at least the investigation at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that how it was reported at least?

A. Yes, that the gun was removed from his vehicle.

Q. Did Hunter Biden say anything about who owned the gun that was missing?

A. Yeah, he said he had purchased the gun on either the 12th or the 13th from StarQuest Shooter.

Q. Hunter Biden had said he himself had purchased the gun?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he say anything about how he discovered the gun was missing?

A. I believe he just went into his vehicle and found it was missing from the center console.

Q. Did he say that?

A. I think so.

Q. Did you prepare a report?

A. Yes.

Q. Would that be reflected in your report, if he had said it?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection to see that report?

A. Sure, yeah.

MR. HINES: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. HINES: Q. Could you read that second sentence there, starting with that word?

A. To be advised —

Q. No, just read it to yourself?

A. I’m sorry, okay.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not Hunter Biden said where he had — his gun had been?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

A. That it was missing from the center console of the vehicle.

Q. He indicated where he had purchased the gun?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the location where he had purchased it?

A. The StarQuest Shooters gun shop on Concord Pike.

This was overkill. One of the elements of the offense on Count Three, the easiest to prove, is that Hunter Biden knew he possessed the gun. The easiest way to prove that is that Hunter signed the gun purchase form and then, 11 days later, found it gone from his truck console and immediately texted Hallie Biden about it.

But in an effort to get Marley to describe Hunter saying that he had found the gun missing from the center console of his truck, Derek Hines used the Delaware Police Report to refresh Marley’s memory so he could describe what Hunter said.

Back in May, in an effort to prevent Hunter from pointing out that no one charged him in the five years since he bought the gun, Hines argued that this form is inadmissible hearsay.

First, the defendant states “both parties may still seek the admission of . . . the Delaware State Police incident report . . .” Response at 1. The report is inadmissible because it is hearsay and not covered by any exception. Fed. R. Evid. 801.

Indeed, it was not admitted yesterday. Hines simply used it to refresh Marley’s memory.

On cross, Abbe Lowell walked Marley through how this report got written up. First, he got Marley to describe that he and Clemons didn’t so much write the police report together. They both wrote their own separate reports, with their own names on the bottom of the pages they wrote.

Q. Did you collaborate with Sergeant Clemons to write the police report that you were shown to refresh your recollection?

A. Collaborate as far as, I did my report and he also wrote his report on his own.

Q. Say that last part?

A. He also did a report.

Q. So if in the police report of that day at the bottom of the page it has the name Sergeant Clemons, does that mean what’s on the page was his or it’s something that you both would have collaborated about, but he wrote it?

Noting that Hines has already used the report to refresh Marley’s memory, Lowell then used it to get Marley to note which parts of the report he wrote and which Clemons wrote.

BY MR. LOWELL: Q. You were shown this to refresh your recollection. Can you do that again for me? Just take a look at that, look down, I want you to see the bottom, I want you to see where there are names, and tell us whether or not that refreshes your recollection as to who is responsible for the words on a page?

A. So this one would be myself.

Q. This one, meaning the front page?

A. Correct.

Q. Now if you’ll turn to the second page.

A. Also myself.

Q. Okay. Third page?

A. Still myself.

He got Marley to describe that the fourth page, where Clemons’ report (which includes the report on what Hallie said that day, which no one claims Marley heard, as well as what Hunter said — the part Hines had Marley claim to remember as overkill). Lowell also got Marley to note that Clemons’ report was all typed up in a nice form; it was far more than notes.

Q. Now on the fourth page, if your report has again, as I was asking, a name at the bottom, does that reflect what?

A. That would be Sergeant Clemons.

Q. That’s not your writing, if he asked questions, that’s what is reflected in the report?

A. Right. So that would be his report.

Q. Okay. I understand. Did you review what he wrote?

A. No.

Q. And whether he wrote this, it’s all typed up in a nice form. That’s not what was done on the scene, right?

A. No, this would be later.

Q. Later the day, later the next day, do you know when?

A. We have three days to complete a report. So I’m not exactly sure.

Q. Okay. Before it becomes finalized, whatever that means, do you read it? The report?

A. Before I submit it in for approval?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I read it.

Lowell got Marley to describe that he doesn’t know when Clemons’ part of the report was submitted. It might even be a supplement, one that — so long as it was submitted under the same number — could be submitted any time after.

Q. At the point at which you did that for this form, had Mr. Clemons already put his part in?

A. I don’t know.

Q. But you see it in the report that it’s a number of pages, some his and some yours?

A. Correct. So it would be two separate reports under. the same number, so like a supplement.

Q. So part could happen one time, and then the next part happens another time, and at the end of the process it’s one report which has all the parts in it?

A. Yes, if it’s the same report number, yes, you could do supplements at any given time, you know, a day later, a month later if new evidence comes up or whatever.

Q. Got it. If there is something about what Ms. Biden said, you weren’t in her earshot, but it would be in the report if Mr. Clemons took that interview?

A. I would imagine.

Q. Did you know, did you review what it was he wrote down that she said?

A. No.

Q. And you have never looked at that?

A. Not that I remember.

Could have been submitted a month later! It was actually three days later, October 26.

Lowell gets Marley to admit that he was only maybe in earshot of the part of the interview where Hunter admitted — that bit Hines introduced as overkill to substantiate the easiest element of the offense for the easiest Count to prove — that he bought the gun.

Q. So he’s interviewing Mr. Biden, you’re not doing that?

A. Yes.

Q. He would be responsible for putting down what you were refreshed as to what Mr. Biden said?

A. Yes.

Q. When you were doing that, you were refreshed that he admitted right away that he had been the one to buy the gun?

A. Yes.

Let me interject and say one reason why Lowell is doing this is because in the part of the report that Clemons wrote (which was clearly designed to be a partisan hit job, including reference to the Biden Family), the part that Marley’s sure he did not hear, he described Hallie Biden saying she looked in Hunter’s truck because she suspected, “I think he is screwing around on me.” Not because she thought he had done drugs that day, but because she was jealous. Lowell needs to get that story in to undercut Hallie’s claim that she saw Hunter overnight on October 22, and thought he may have been using drugs, almost the only thing she remembers clearly from a very traumatic day over five years ago.

That might be all Lowell was preparing here. But in the process, he showed that Marley claimed to remember something that he maybe didn’t hear. And, more importantly, he got Marley to describe that Clemons’ part of the report could have been submitted anytime after he himself, Marley, opened the case number with his own report.

Lowell also got Marley to describe that when he went, by himself, to StarQuest to find the serial number for the gun, they may have simply given him the serial number by reading off the computer terminal, which he then copied.

Q. And when you went to StarQuest, you asked them if they had a record for the sale?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you — did they or did they just give you the serial number which is what you were looking for?

A. I’m not sure if they gave me a register receipt or they read it off the computer terminal and I copied it and made the phone call and put it in NCIC.

Lowell notes that there’s no copy of the receipt itself, nor of the Form 4473. If the paper documentation is not there, he didn’t get it.

Q. On the report you made, there is no copy on of what StarQuest gave you that day if they gave you anything?

A. Okay.

Q. I’m asking?

A. Oh, yeah, if it’s not.

Q. If it’s not there, it’s not part of the report?

A. Right.

Q. You might have just asked for the serial number?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn’t ask for a ATF Form 4473 on that day?

A. No.

Q. You just wanted the serial number?

A. Exactly.

Q. Were you involved after that, in getting the people at StarQuest to send you the actual form that was filled out by the gun buyer?

A. No.

Q. And then after you did that, after you went to StarQuest you didn’t go back, then your role in this would then after, to then write your report?

A. That was it.

We of course know that StarQuest didn’t print out the receipt for Marley. That receipt didn’t get first printed out until 2020, when StarQuest owner Ron Parlimere and some buddies and … Vincent Clemons were leaking this story to the press.

In 2020, Parlimere and Clemons were leaking the story to the press, and also “needing to get their stories straight.”

It also reveals a now-exposed attempt by the gun store to fabricate a false narrative about the gun sale. Palimere said the addition of the seller transaction serial number (“5,653”) may have been added on October 26, 2018. (TAB 4, Palimere FD-302 at 4). He said the vehicle registration reference was added in 2021. Yet, the government provided WhatsApp communications from October 2020 and February 2021 between Palimere, friends of his, and then-Delaware state trooper Vincent Clemons3 (see TABs 6 – 6C), all of which refer to the form, a plan to send it to others, needing to get their stories straight about what occurred in 2020, and wanting the gun sale issue and the form exposed during the Presidential campaign.

3 Not to be lost is the fact that Clemons was the Delaware State Police officer who first arrived at Janssens’ grocery store on October 23, 2018 when Hallie Biden threw a bag containing the handgun into a trash can in front of the store. It was Clemons who took statements about the handgun from both Hallie and Hunter Biden and was part of filling out an official police report on the issue. Two years later, he is in the communications with Palimere about the Form 4473, one of which states: “Yep your side is simple – Hunter bought a gun from you, he filled out the proper forms and the Feds approved him for a purchase.” (emphasis added). Palimere later responded, “I’ll keep it short and sweet as well: Hunter bought a gun. The police visited me asking for verification of the purchase and that’s all I can recall from that day. It was over 2 years ago.” (TAB 6B, 10/26/20 Palimere-Clemons Texts at 4, 6.) The reference to filling out the “proper forms” is not lost on defense counsel given what transpired thereafter. And, despite the importance of Clemons (e.g., the person who actually took the statements), the Special Counsel is foregoing him as a witness to call two other Delaware officers instead.

Now, as I said, it was overkill for Hines to use the police report to refresh Marley’s memory to remember something he maybe didn’t witness in an attempt to get even more proof of something that Hunter is not contesting — that he knew he owned the gun — to prove the easiest charge.

But as I’ve laid out, Count 1 — one of the two paperwork charges that requires proving Hunter’s mindset at the moment he filled out a form on October 12, 2018 — has a materiality component. Prosecutors have to prove that the false statement was material to whether they would sell him a gun or not.

And Count 2 charges a false statement on a document that the gun shop “is required … to be kept in the [gun shop’s] records.”

Abbe Lowell probably would have gotten there anyway, even if Hines hadn’t gone for overkill on the easiest element of offense on the easiest charge to prove. But by focusing on the form, he got Marley to make how the documentation from StarQuest got recorded and shared with the state of Delaware as they were conducting a criminal investigation in which they believed Hunter to be the victim an issue.

He laid the groundwork to get witness testimony that, in fact, the gun shop wasn’t complying with their record-keeping requirements, and they weren’t requiring all the elements of the form to be accurate and filled in before they sold Hunter a gun.

I think it likely that Judge Noreika would exclude it even though it is solidly material to both those charges. She said as much on Wednesday. (In a side bar, she even suggested that Hunter should not have listed his Dad’s address as his home address, citing a recent case where she sentenced someone to a year for that.) Noreika is dead-set on protecting the gun shop from facing any legal exposure from the trial of Hunter Biden, even if it means he cannot confront his accusers.

But what the gun shop shared with Delaware when — and the fact that Delaware didn’t get the paperwork they otherwise might have — came into evidence yesterday as a result of Derek Hines’ to go for overkill on evidence relating to the easier charge to prove.

49 replies
  1. Clare Kelly says:

    Here’s to more of the defense’s use of patience, skill, and opportunity against the prosecution.

    “Give him enough rope and he will hang himself”

    Ray, John
    Book of English Proverbs

    Thank you.

    • emptywheel says:

      I want to emphasize, I don’t think this will help much at this trial. But Lowell is playing for appeal at this point as much as anything else.

      • Clare Kelly says:

        You’ve been diligent in this regard.
        Personally, each use of logic by the defense, or anyone really, assuages my despair over current events.
        Thanks for your work.

      • EatenByGrues says:

        The appeal shouldn’t be hard, given that the prosecution is playing for a quick and dirty conviction before the election, for political reasons, and doesn’t care one whit if this later gets thrown out after November.

        Sadly, it appears that the Court is in on this.

  2. Upisdown says:

    One thing I took from Hallie Biden’s testimony is that she was the person who placed the gun in the pouch which was later tested positive for drug residue. I believe she described the pouch as something Hunter often used. I assume it was left at her house. I would think this testimony negates the earlier reporting about the gun having drug residue on it when taken out of evidence storage.

  3. klynn says:

    “Noreika is dead-set on protecting the gun shop from facing any legal exposure from the trial of Hunter Biden, even if it means he cannot confront his accusers.”

    I honestly cannot understand her. This makes her look compromised.

    • emptywheel says:

      I think the decision was good faith. It’s absolutely the case that you keep out mini-trials, that you can’t air a selective prosecution bid at trial, as opposed to pre-trial. But I think her focus on doing that has led her to ignore both the materiality and the impeachment value of all this.

      • klynn says:

        “But I think her focus on doing that has led her to ignore both the materiality and the impeachment value of all this.”

        This. This is what bothers me. I cannot process that she is missing this.

        • Shadowalker says:

          She should have recused herself, since she conflated the memoir with what she read in the hit pieces by that tabloid, which probably caused an unconscious bias against the defendant.

  4. originalK says:

    So Wise and Hines get to throw the salesman, Cleveland, under the bus for owner Palimere, and now Officer Marley under the bus for Sergeant Clemons. And the judge is fully knowledgeable about the efforts to keep the contemporaneous forms related to the prosecution’s narratives out of evidence – will be working to prevent Lowell from using them even as the door has been opened by the prosecution? And she’s out of her lane again, with respect to the prosecution and the jury, in bringing up sentencing someone to a year for using his dad’s residence. Someone should look into whether that defendant got due process.

    I was already cued into that Ms. Biden might have been operating more from what we are going to call jealousy than concerns about her partner’s drug use or self-harm. (Based partly on personal experience – it’s less about the other woman and more about disgust with the man – trying to get him to live up to the standard that he has set, for example, by returning to DE and attending rehab together. Putting a gun in the trash in front of the supermarket is still a stretch, tho’.)

    All this is a long way to get to my third point, which is that based on your reporting & what I’ve seen of the evidence, Wise and Hines are also throwing Hallie Biden under the bus in their pursuit of Hunter.

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Although there has indeed been much underbussing, in a variety of settings, Hallie Biden is a witness for the prosecution…with all that may entail.

      • originalK says:

        (I know you know this, but…) Appearing under subpoena, and after they reneged on a plea deal with the defendant. Her drug use, for example, was part of the prosecution’s case, not central to the defense’s cross, as far as I’m aware. What happened to the drug paraphernalia she described – was it in the bag too? The evidence the prosecution introduced is damaging to her, especially when looked at critically.

        • Clare Kelly says:

          Replying to ORIGINALK 12:42 pm


          Again, I think that goes to the potentially “damaging to her” evidence the prosecution has *not* introduced.

        • originalK says:

          I’m just noting this for anyone else who is following coverage today – the midnight to 2 a.m. texts between HB and his daughter mention meeting at 57th & 5th to swap vehicles. Driving from Brooklyn into the city at that time is actually quite beautiful (long ago, when I was her age, I capped off a visit from my mom on the Staten Island Ferry around 3 – 4 a.m.) and avoids a lot of traffic.

          But 57th & 5th is Trump Tower.

  5. freebird says:

    We are now going to get an exegeses on the verb “to be” concerning the usage of the tenses of the word “are” to prove if a user is cured or uncured. Plus, we are going to get an analysis of the forensic value of cocaine found in a dumpster at a 7/11. I question un-contamination of anything found in a 7/11 dumpster.

    • emptywheel says:

      Understand that that focus on language serves several purposes, one of which is for an as-applied challenge to the law in question. It’s nowhere near as Clintonesque as some who started journalism covering the Clinton impeachment make it out to be.

      • freebird says:

        Ah! You got the reference, but those sections and questions are ambiguous. As a former trainer of financial analysts, I would have struck out those questions and broken up it as needed. Additionally, I was told that any ambiguity or confusion in a contract goes to the detriment of the drawer and to benefit of the signer.

        However, I get what you are saying.

  6. boatgeek says:

    IANAL. Is it normal for a witness to be given something not admitted as evidence to “refresh their memory?” That seems super-hinky to me.

    Also, is Clemons expected to testify?

    • emptywheel says:

      Yes, it’s normal. They do this with FBI 302s all the time. Lowell used the gun salesguy’s grand jury testimony to refresh his memory that he loves to upsell people. And yesterday really bogged down because the government wouldn’t let Lowell introduce later texts between Hallie and Hunter except via refreshing.

  7. David F. Snyder says:

    OT, but CNN has an interesting report today on a survey attorney (anonymous) impressions of Judge Cannon’s courtroom style, plus one of her SDFL colleague’s impression of her: Looks like a cleanup on aisle five Aileen Cannon? Short version of the report: she’s a well-intended border-line OCD uber-nerd (not intended as a slam; I see much of myself in many of the descriptions related in the story).

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      … and quite inexperienced; in her seven years as an attorney, she was on only four trial teams. (A) money quote: “One attorney told CNN that if he has a case that is assigned to Cannon, he asks the opposing party whether they’d consent to allowing the cases to be handled by a magistrate judge…”

      • bmaz says:

        Lol “only on four trial teams”. Well, that is four more than a LOT of federal judicial appointees. Cannon is quirky, sir what? So are a LOT of federal judges. People are hyper focused on what she is, and is not. It is just silly at this point. Quit caterwauling, it is what it is.

        • ButteredToast says:

          Undoubtedly there are a lot of “quirky” federal judges, and many with less experience than she. But a lot of federal judges aren’t going to an astounding length to delay a trial involving a former President of the United States past an election in which he’s running for the office again. Her individual rulings so far might not say much if each is considered individually, but evaluated collectively, the trend is pretty striking. Or does her jurisprudence always favor defendants to such an extent? To be honest I don’t know, but I doubt it.

        • bmaz says:

          And a lot of others are, in various ways. I just would hope for less of a myopic focus on Cannon and a better understanding of the larger dynamics.

        • Shadowalker says:

          June 7, 2024 at 4:46 pm

          “ But a lot of federal judges aren’t going to an astounding length to delay a trial involving a former President of the United States past an election in which he’s running for the office again.”

          The problem with this logic is there are no prior cases to compare this with.

        • bmaz says:

          Sure there are other cases and instances, you just don’t know them and are focused on this because you think it is unique. It is not.

        • Rayne says:

          Reply to bmaz
          June 8, 2024 11:23 a.m.

          Cite the other cases in which the defendant has been charged with violations under 18 USC 793(e); 18 USC 1512(k); 18 USC 1512(b)(2)(A); 18 USC 1512(c)(1),2; 18 USC 1519, 2; 18 USC 1001(a)(1),2; 18 USC 1001(a)(2),2; 18 USC 1001(a)(2), is the current or former president of the United States, and is the GOP’s presumptive nominee for re-election as POTUS.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol Rayne, I am not your law clerk. Do “your own research”. And your demands for search criteria are intentionally skewed to be useless. Your demand is a joke, but you know that and framed it so anyway. If you think this is the only federal criminal case involving classified documents, CIPA etc, you are a fool and maybe should not be commenting on legal matters. But, that seems to be the soup du jour here lately.

        • Rayne says:

          Reply to bmaz
          June 8, 2025 12:27 pm

          You’re neatly avoiding the fact there has been no case involving the willful retention of national defense information and obstruction of justice by a former president now running for re-election, whose case is now in front of a federal judge appointed by the accused. As if every defendant accused involving retention of classified documents claims presidential immunity.

          You’re reflexively claiming there are other cases like this while refusing to cite cases.

          And if I hadn’t done “your own research” I wouldn’t have cited federal codes under which Trump was charged.

          Act like a lawyer who knows what they’re talking about instead of automatically chastising commenters here which has been your unfortunate personal offering of soup du jour.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Not so much. The takeaway is supposed to be that Cannon is alone, inexperienced and overwhelmed, and thus likely to be slow and pedantic as a way to manage her insecurities.

      Maybe. But it doesn’t explain why all Cannon’s rulings favor Trump. This perspective, if you can call it that, comes from ten anonymous lawyers, who don’t want Cannon to know what they think of her, because they may be in her court in the future. Assuming that’s true, they give readers no way to gauge their own experience, credibility, or politics, or motivation to be accurate or not. Rather than offer something new, CNN has come up; with an excuse to rehash the same old stuff.

        • JAFO_NAL says:

          This is a point I also wondered about. Those communications will unfortunately likely never get disclosed unless some of her former clerks break ranks.

      • Ithaqua0 says:

        Re: “doesn’t explain why”… you’re right, of course; it doesn’t explain why, especially in light of:

        “Defense attorneys CNN spoke to described Cannon as a judge who gives minimal deference to defendants and as a “notoriously” tough sentencer. To that end, the long leash she’s given the Trump team in the pretrial phase of the case has struck a chord with them.

        “She’s certainly not sympathetic to most defendants, and she’s certainly playing a different game with the current defendant before her,” another lawyer told CNN, in reference to Trump.”

        • bmaz says:

          Unnamed “defense attys” bad mouthing their local judge do not mean diddly squat. Of course they are tarring Cannon, and it is in their interest to do so. Good grief, people here are suckers. The CNN report is basically useless. And I very much have long known, liked and respected one of its authors.

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Thanks for the link.

      For the record, I didn’t see validation for “well-intended”.

      The piece had a whiff of a public relations damage control campaign to me.

    • Shadowalker says:

      Acquittal on first two, mistrial on third. First two are thought crimes which is extremely difficult to prove what is in someone else’s mind. Third is mistrial only because no eye witness to drug use, remember he was drinking heavily at the time, but they will decide on a number of options as a group without need to agree on any one. (ala Trump’s conviction)

      • bmaz says:

        Lol, where do you folks get this stuff? You have not been in court, did not have a chance to evaluate the credibility of either witnesses nor evidence and don’t have much criminal jury experience, else you would never make such bold predictions. You just don’t know.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Well I will admit to not having a great track record on these things. I was sure the Trump trial was going to be a split verdict if not acquittal on all counts. A lot depends on jury instruction.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          Wait until the transcript gets posted, but I would like to see an assessment by our lawyers here about the net prosecution case (Hines – Lowell). The jury is not done yet with evidence but the government case seemed sparse despite all the advantages Judge Norieka gave them pretrial.

        • Ithaqua0 says:

          It’s the fortune-telling business. If you’re right, you get to make a big deal out of it to all your friends, and if you’re wrong, so are 95% of the other people telling fortunes! (No offense meant to the three above, it’s a fun game to play sometimes.)

  8. Michael Jantz says:

    IANAL. Is the jury aware that Hallie Biden has been immunized? Is Hunter’s defense allowed to point out that her actions (e.g., stealing and discarding the gun in a public trash bin) are illegal?

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. EDIT: named changed at commenter’s request. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Michael Jantz says:

      Hi Rayne,

      Just use the name Michael Jantz for my comments. I’m not sure how to submit a change.

      [Moderator’s note: I’ll change your last comment. All you need to do here forward is exactly what you did on this comment: type your username in the Name field. Thanks for updating your name to meet the site’s standard. /~Rayne]

    • says:

      Mr. Jantz – Good questions!

      Generally, a defense attorney will try to point out things that make a particular witnesses’ testimony, if harmful to the defense’s case, appear faulty in some way. Past alleged criminal conduct not charged, or not resulting in criminal conviction,* would only be relevant and allowed by a court on cross examination if the alleged prior criminal acts “are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness” of the testifying witness or another person the witness is talking about. See Rule 608(b) and read the Subdivision (b) comment 2) for more explanation.

      I’m not following the case closely enough to know if the jury was informed of Hallie’s immunity deal, or if the judge ruled previously on the admissibility of any expected impeachment evidence. But strategy alone — not wanting defense to appear to “bully” prosecution witnesses, for example — might be a reason for defense to steer clear of such impeachment tactics, if the court found them permissible.

      In a case like this, a more effective strategy to cast doubt on the veracity of a witness’ testimony or cause the jury to diminish how much weight it should give to her testimony during deliberations might be to instead focus on ‘no direct first person observation of disputed conduct’ during the relevant 10 days (see Rule 602) or faulty memory (underRule 613 or Rule 701(a), for example).

      *Admissibility of a witness’ prior conviction, not relevant here, falls under Rule 609.

  9. wetzel-rhymes-with says:

    I Am Not A Lawyer, and thank God! Here facts are development from a goddamn document presented to strengthen other evidence, to act as a warrant for claims based on admitted evidence, but itself is not “admitted” in the rules of evidence, if I’m reading right, but itself is not “admitted” and therefore can’t actually be picked apart by the defense “in itself” in its aspect in the Toulmin logic condemning this man, to “cross-exam” its production to find your accusers, scurrilous fuckers to confident they could screw the President’s son they couldn’t even be bothered to give a shit on proper admin, and they were right!

    Hunter Biden thought he was a made man, but jokes on him. His role is not to question how these forms were generated, instrumental to his doom, or whatever esoteric hocus pocus way you guys say Hunter is screwed, the right way to say this bmaz understands and is kicking my ass in his brain right now on “idiocy” like I’m trying to play jazz with a kazoo, so Hunter can express no “contempt”, if I’m reading this right, and IANAL so of course I’m not, but sure. You all are the “subject matter experts” as they say. I am an ant in the dragon world of your comprehension of the justice in all this, in the general way.

    I defer to whatever asinine form of genius allowed Abbe Lowell to slide arguments in on it like some kind of super-lawyer-magician like a tweedy Perry Mason, the evidence everyone is referring to, but doesn’t “exist” proper sense you all have Latin for, I guess. Not on the thing, there, but we can see its shadow on the wall, the fire lighting the horseshit pile showing on the cave wall to save a man condemned, but probably not, Marcy says. He’s fucked. Everyone will deny they see it.

Comments are closed.