quade 4 #26 July 21, 2007 Quote . . . I think they both want this to go through the apeals process and have it overturned As it sits now, nobody ever needs to talk about it in court again. Take it to appeals and everyone is at risk of being called up to testify. From Libby's and Cheney's point of view, that would be insane. From their point of view it would be far better to let sleeping dogs lay . . . or lie as the case may be.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 July 21, 2007 >>Rushmc: . . . I think they both want this to go through the apeals process and have it overturned IM(p)O, it's unlikely to be overturned. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the judge ran a clean trial. >>>Quade: As it sits now, nobody ever needs to talk about it in court again. Take it to appeals and everyone is at risk of being called up to testify. Testimony (or other new evidence) is never taken in an appellate court - just briefs and oral arguments. I presume you mean if the conviction is overturned and a new trial is granted - in which case, yes, it starts back at square one. (No, not the gear store...) But sometimes convictions are overturned, without the chance of the govt re-trying the case - in which case, the case is over, and the defendant simply gets off (that's what happened in Ollie North's case.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
