Are we talking about this story or cops raiding houses?
Real shame that anyone would try to justify retaliatory acts of any sort against witnesses, due to the chilling effect that would have on future trials.
Isn't that exactly the point though? To have a chilling effect on testimony that might displease them? Why else attack the believed home of a witness after he gives testimony?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the point, though I guess we can't know 100% for sure unless the people who did this admit to that being the reason.
What will we do without "experts" saying extremely stupid shit in the future? Truly, we are lost.
The guy’s job is to go from trial to trial saying cops were right to murder dudes. If he’s gonna make black men across the country fear for their lives, he should fear for his. Only fair.
No it is not "only fair" to retaliate against a witness for what they said on the stand. It is never okay. You completely undermine the notion of a fair trial if you create a society in which defense witnesses fear for their wellbeing.
The content of his testimony is not relevant to the fact that witness intimidation is not okay. Never has been, and never will be.
A guy whose livelihood is maintained through lying about police murder also undermines the notion of a fair trial.
This is a common misconception: Eyewitnesses aren't the only type of witnesses, and an expert witness is still a witness. I mean, it's right there in the name.
If you have evidence he has lied under oath, I'd like to see it. I saw his testimony and didn't find it credible, but I also couldn't find any proof of perjury.
Lying by omission or presenting a deceptive context may not be perjury, but for any normal person it’s still lying. His job is to help flesh out a deceptive explanation of police violence regardless of whether he explicitly lies to accomplish that goal.
Yeah, that's why the defense calls expert witnesses: to present information in a manner most favorable to the defendant. You may think its deceptive, I think it's no more deceptive than arguing that a man on trial for murdering his parents could plea for understanding on the grounds that he has just become an orphan.
Please show me where, in the rules of evidence (either federal or state) it says you have to have witnessed something to be called as a witness.