An interesting case is United States v. Foster, 986 F. 2d 541 (D. C. Cir. 1993). The Court reversed a conviction for distributing crack cocaine because the defense had not been permitted to cross-examine officers about their ability to identify other persons they mentioned in connection with the alleged transaction. The answers to the questions would have made it more or less probable that the officers had correctly identified the defendant. The Court opined that relevancy objections should have been overruled. Under the rules of evidence, evidence is either relevant or not relevant. The Court opined that there is no such thing as "marginally relevant" evidence.
GREGORY CHANDLER, Attorney at Law
No comments:
Post a Comment