Sunday, October 16

World

Intelligent Design In The Dock

This is funny:
MR. MUISE: We object on the basis of hearsay again for any testimony relating to this affidavit, this out of court statement issued by Mr. Kenyon.

THE COURT: Again you're going to have to do better than a basic hearsay objection, and it's also an affidavit that appears to have been part of the record papers in that case. Now, is it unreliable? Do you have any reason to doubt its voracity?

MR. MUISE: Well, Your Honor, again with regard to it's an affidavit given in a court case that's not addressing the issue of intelligent design. Again she's relying on these statements to arrive at an opinion that's not substantiated by, you know, by weaving this web of these assorted statements throughout the course of the testimony. We're going to continue to object to any of the statements that keep coming up, Your Honor, and I'll ask for a standing objection on that, but --

THE COURT: Well, I don't think a standing objection is going to work for you because you may have particular things you want to say about it. You have to do what you have to do. I'll overrule the objection.

...

Q. And Matt, could you go to the first highlighted portion of the document?

MR. MUISE: Your Honor, we object on the basis of hearsay.

THE COURT: Are you objecting to the document, reference to the document generally, or to individual parts of the document?

...

MR. MUISE: Objection to the reading of this portion of the text into the record on the basis of hearsay.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm not offering it for the truth, Your Honor.

...

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, one more thing. Mr. Muise is objecting because these are philosophical and theological statements, and I think most of what Dr. Forrest is going to testify about surely are, and it is the plaintiff's position that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical, theological, religious statement. So that, I mean, that's what she's here to testify about, so it's not going to be surprising if those kinds of statements are, you know, the core of Dr. Forrest's testimony today.

THE COURT: Well, if you said that to get Mr. Muise to stop making continued objections, you're probably going to fail. So let's move on.

...

MR. MUISE: Your Honor, we object on the basis of hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Muise is the counsel for the defendant, the Dover Area School District, which is trying to teach Intelligent Design in public schools. They don't seem to be having a good time of it in court.

One thing I've noticed about judges (in my limited experience) is that they really don't appreciate time-wasters.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:55 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Sounds like they've got a crackerjack legal scholar on the defense there. He knows his case sucks, and isn't smart enough to be creative. The judge is gonna spank him hard before it's over, because like the original article said, when an attorney starts wasting his time, the odds of getting any motion accepted get slim.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at Monday, October 17 2005 07:33 AM (0yYS2)

2 I object to this post on the basis of hearsay.

Posted by: TallDave at Friday, October 21 2005 12:56 PM (giBEj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0154, elapsed 0.2101 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.201 seconds, 340 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.