Assuming facts not in evidence

Mark Levin is an attorney (I am not – I know law from watching Perry Mason)

One very important rule about questioning people in a trial is to not embed a “fact” in a question if you haven’t already introduced evidence to support that fact.

“Mr Smith, what did you think when you heard that Mr Jones beat his first wife?”

Firstly, that is a hearsay question. You generally only can testify to what you personally witnessed, not what someone else says happened


Q: Mr Jones, how long have you known Mr Smith?
A: Since high school
Q: Do you know if Mr Jones has been married?
A: Yes, I was the best man at the wedding of his first wife
Q: First Wife? Has he been married more than once?
A: Yes, they were divorced after about three years
Q: Did you continue to have contact with them after they were married?
A: Yes, mr Smith and I would go out drinking together pretty much every weekend
Q: Do you have any idea why they divorced?
A: Yes, I do. She decided to leave because he beat her up.
Objection! Hearsay!!!
Q: Mr Smith, did the couple ever have disagreements while you were present?
A: yeah, several times when he was drunk, he slugged her
Q: so to be clear, you were in the room when Mr Smith beat his first wife
A: yes, that’s right

The lawyer isn’t introducing any facts that haven’t been backed by a prior question, and not leading the witness by phrasing the question to elecit the desired response. Of course, the lawyer already knows the answers to the questions before he asks them.

So Mr Levin asked the question over and over today implying guilt – “So when the bomber’s wife saw the picture of her husband, why didn’t she call the police?”
The FBI released those pictures at 5 PM ET on Thursday. The suspects are at the gas station when it is robbed at 10:20 PM, then the MIT officer is shot and the car is hijacked. Police track the stolen car through its GPS.

Facts not in evidence:
1) That she has a TV and watched the news
2).that she didn’t call police

It also includes a very dangerous principle – that failure to call the police is itself criminal. One of the special privileges of marriage is the spousal exemption that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against their husband.

So let’s now assume she was watching TV. The FBI announced ahead of time they were going to release pictures. The bombers probably were interested in seeing those pictures. So let’s say they both are watching the TV together. If you’re the wife of Bomber #1, what do you do?

This entry was posted in Mark Levin. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Assuming facts not in evidence

  1. CC1s121LrBGT says:

    You see why I switch stations whenever I am on a station and Mark Levin comes on… and that was before I recently learned that he had worked for Ed Meese.

  2. Ed Gein says:

    Levin is a clown. Really, let’s be honest, aside from Rush (whom I think very smart and entertaining) what syndicated assbag is worth the dead flies from Madonna’s panties? Which brings the whole syndication discussion to the fore- I’m beyond sick of it (except of course if I am traveling somewhere and want to hear Rush at noon EST). But really, could Hannity or Levin get syndicated were they not in tight with Rush? No flipping way, Jack.

    • CC1s121LrBGT says:

      Glenn Beck is smart and entertaining too. So is Mike Church on SiriusXM.

      One additional problem I have with Levin is his temperament – I have no interest in hearing someone shout at me, especially someone for whom I have such little respect.

      • Ed Gein says:

        Yes, his temper (like Savage) comes off as a psychotic child, plus his voice is like a million bees being raped at once.

        I listen to Beck for periods, then have to take a break for a while, and agree he is smart. I never seem to tire of Rush.

  3. Ed Gein says:

    I wish Mark Steyn had a daily show; he’s the only sub for Rush worth a damn.

  4. HPaws says:

    I never stop learning from Steyn, an amazing man.

  5. Linda S. says:

    I must be weird but I do love Mark. My daughter went to church and sang in the choir with his mother-in-law for years before she passed away. His M-I-L was slightly on the liberal side but she and Mark always got along just fine.

    • CC1s121LrBGT says:

      Flipping channels this afternoon, I landed briefly on MSLSD and saw a young buck named Buck talked, with “The Blaze” under his name. It was the same Buck that you had recommended a few weekends back, Linda. I think he was a guest on the show. I don’t stay on that channel more than a few minutes, or I start to feel disconnected from reality.

  6. Parrott says:

    I listen to Mark Steyn every chance I hear he is subbing. My wife who is not really into talk radio, really enjoyed listening to Mark Steyn the few times I had her pinned inside my truck, when we were traveling back up 95 and 77 from Florida. (pulling our TT)
    I was relieved, that she liked Mark, because there are sometimes you just don’t feel like listening to country music, and you want to catch up on what was happening while you were on Vacation.
    If we don’t agree on a station, then the radio is off. I will then listen to the diesel, which to me, isn’t bad. She the earbuds in and listens to something on her Samsung ‘Note’, but I digress.
    Mark has a great sense of humor. I would listen to his radio show, but he must work hard at coming up with some of that stuff. He is hilarious.
    So subbing probably fits him best.

Leave a Reply