this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

9413 readers
4718 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.

For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.

[–] MourningDove@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Thanks for bring up an example of precedence. It helps a lot.

And look at that statement:

could significantly enhance credibility and probative value.

could significantly enhance credibility.

It’s not evidence to lead to conviction.

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Can testimony alone lead to a conviction?

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, “expert witness” testimony sends people to prison all the time. If you don’t know what that is, they are state lackeys labeled experts in whatever field by the prosecuting attorney to go up and lie about why the defendant is guilty in their “expert” opinion.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

“Great job, that definitely shows he’s a rapist, but we still can’t say he’s a rapist!” - You, that’s what you sound like.

I thought you said you were going to block me, whatever happened to that?