Re: Terrorist Entropy vs Extropic Liberty
Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:41:14 -0400

I'm already regretting having tossed in my two cents here, as I cannot afford
the time to form anything like a professional opinion about the McVeigh case.
It will naturally be a matter of strong opinion and I respect that many here
will have done more research into the matter than I. Accordingly, please
accept these closing comments from me *cum grano salis*.

In a message dated 96-08-04 14:30:11 EDT, Ian Goddard writes:

> IAN: And there is two sides of a trial, what the Judge allows to be
> and what the Judge does not allow. I think the jury is the true judge
> and should have unrestricted access to all information, anything less
> is a sham.

Legal structures addressing the handling and presentation of evidence are
complex. There's no way around this: Its a subject that *very* bright minds
devote whole careers to. *As a lawyer* I cannot hope to express an informed
opinion about the evidence presented in a complex case in which I did not
participate without *significant* research and analysis. Thus, I'll keep my
mouth shut. Opinions from other perspectives certainly have value -- again,
that's why we have public trials.

But let me just offer one non-partisan "meta-value" that underlies much of
the law of evidence. Time and judicial resources are limited and disputes
must be resolved within a *reasonable* amount of time. Thus, there *have* to
be at least some limits on the evidence that can be presented at a trial.
Believe me, if the parties to a case were allowed to say everything they
could think of in support of their positions, nothing would ever get
resolved. Consider that "unrestricted access to all information" is
problematic in this important respect, if for no other.

Greg Burch <> <> or
"Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."
-- H.L. Mencken