The press is running with the Godfather II quote thing, and I think we need a dig on it
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/roger-stone-referenced-godfather-part-ii-character-in-tampering-with-congressional-witness-robert-mueller-says-in-indictment
One has to wonder how Mueller plans to get around the Hearsay Rule on that one.
The legal definition of hearsay usually runs along the lines of: Hearsay evidence is evidence of a statement that 1/ was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that 2/ is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
Now, the Federal Rules of Evidence have tonnes of exceptions to the hearsay exclusion, but none of them really seem to fit.
-
You can't really take the 'tampered witness' description of the tampering at face value – that's the question being decided and it is no more than an accusation wrapped in hearsay. Even if Stone contradicted his sworn testimony in private, all you have is a way to impeach a witness who hasn't been called, in a way that doesn't grasps the entire question being decided. That doesn't seem to me to be the evidential foundation for this, then.
-
some sort of evidence rule 801(d) exception ['The Conspiracy Exception'] – now if Mueller is building a conspiracy case,
That's Notable
-
would the 'Catchall Rule' really apply here?
Is there a lawfag in the house?