Viewing Single Post From: Weekly Discussion
Nov 4 2008, 10:22 AM
- Elite Member
- December 20, 2007
No, actually, anything is not possible. There are consitutional requirements as well as rules of evidence that must be followed. I don't care if the DA felt Bo's testimony was necessary or not. He would have still been sworn in before being allowed to give ANY testimony. And, under the rules of evidence, unsupported allegations of crimes for which the accused was never charged are irrelevant and inadmissible. The judge is allowed to consider many things in setting bail, including the criminal history of the defendant. But, no judge would allow testimony regarding crimes for which the defendant WAS NOT CHARGED. If so, that would mean that you or I could walk into a courtroom and tell the court that a defendant tried to kill someone (with no proof to support that claim) and have the judge take that unsubstantiated accusastion into account. Does that sound remotely fair to you?
- Nov 4 2008, 12:55 AM
Well, the DA did say it was an unconventional request and she may have felt Bo's testimony was needed to succeed in getting bail denied. Unorthodox things do happen in court, I would assume. None of us know what happens in every court case so anything is possible.
As for Bo bringing up crimes she was never charged with, I don't see what the issue is with that. Everyone in Salem pretty much knows it and Nicole would've been charged had Colin and Victor pressed charges. It's relevant. It just can't be the reason why you lock Nicole up. That's all. It's something that can and should be brought up and given thought to IMO. It's related to her reputation and her character. Just like you have people provide testimony as a character witness. Most of what they say is along those very same lines. Your taking that person's word for it. There isn't proof for every one of a character witness's claims. Bo is very much acting as a character witness only he is a cop. He's just giving his input and saying what he knows and it's relevant. Again, I don't think this is being submitted as evidence. It's just bring brought to the judge's attention to provide info about who Nicole is. It provides background that is needed. This is also an arraignment and you are trying to determine if giving her bail is the right decision and, to me, that makes bringing up Colin and Victor reasonable because it provides info that suggests she could potentially be dangerous or irrational.
Your forgetting Caroline can not be compared to Nicole. Caroline is an older woman who has been a pillar of the community for years. Nicole's history and reputation speaks for itself. it's quite clear why Caroline would get bail and not her even if Caroline was caught holding a knife over the body. They would never expect Caroline to be a flight risk based on her history and the fact that she has two sons who are police officers, has a Pub in Salem, and is older. As for Melanie, as soon as they learned of what she knew and her lies, they got on her case. Hell, they were before that. Only problem is they had no evidence. her lying and behavior made her look guilty but they didn't have the sort of evidence they have on Nicole or even Caroline so they could not arrest her. If you recall, Max was brought in and the DA determined they did not have enough evidence in that it was proven by a witness at the Salem Inn Max was there when he said he was and they have Chelsea. Nick. and Melanie who were there when he fought with Trent, which accounts for the bloody shirt. His story checks out. Bo said the DA determined there just wasn't enough to hold Max and charge him, unlike Caroline who was witnessed threatening the victim at the Pub and was standing over the body with the knife along with admitting she was very angry.
Your right in that it's Days and they never handle legal issues with complete realism. Honestly, unless it's a law show, most shows will make mistakes or not be completely realistic. I think Days keeps it realistic enough to get by.
And character witnesses do not get to testify that somebody tried to kill somebody else without any evidence to support those claims. They can testify that somebody has a reputation for lying or even for violence (under very limited circumstances), but they can't just make accusations regarding unrelated crimes on the witness stand.
I've been watching Days for over 20 years and they've never even approached the realm of realism in the their legal issues. That's okay, I can deal. I'm sure doctor's feel the same way about the way they treat medical issues on the show. In fact, at this point it mostly makes me laugh a lot.