Whitehouse invokes the "missing witness" rule to draw an adverse inference for the party trying to conceal witnesses.
It's like, if your "alibi" witness is your spouse but you refuse to let your spouse testify under the spousal privilege, the jury can infer you're full of crap.
It's like, if your "alibi" witness is your spouse but you refuse to let your spouse testify under the spousal privilege, the jury can infer you're full of crap.
Philbin says that he *imagine* that the missing witness charge is not available when a person asserts a valid privilege for making the witness unavailable.
That's not exactly right. There are, at least in NY, 4 elements here.
That's not exactly right. There are, at least in NY, 4 elements here.
1. Witness is material
2. Witness testimony is not, like, repetitive of other testimony.
3. Witness is under the "control" of the party blocking them, and could otherwise be expected to testify in favor of blocking party.
4. Witness is available.
2. Witness testimony is not, like, repetitive of other testimony.
3. Witness is under the "control" of the party blocking them, and could otherwise be expected to testify in favor of blocking party.
4. Witness is available.
Here:
1. Bolton is material.
2. Bolton has 1st hand testimony not given by others.
3. Bolton is a GODDAMN TRUMP APPOINTEE AND ROCK-RIBBED REPUBLICAN
4. Bolton is STANDING RIGHT THERE.
1. Bolton is material.
2. Bolton has 1st hand testimony not given by others.
3. Bolton is a GODDAMN TRUMP APPOINTEE AND ROCK-RIBBED REPUBLICAN
4. Bolton is STANDING RIGHT THERE.
