Comment Of The Day But, sometimes not every day. |
First
of all, those of you who know the legal process know that to
begin a trial without clearly setting out all of the procedures
is extremely odd. Especially, since the most important element
in a trial is the selection and calling of witnesses. This trial
is underway, on the wing, and we'll see about those pesky witnesses
when we get to that bridge. The trial is neither civil nor criminal,
but because of the enormous consequences, it should be considered
closer to the criminal side of that equation; hence, it should
be held by all that the rights of the accused need to
have the greatest protection, not the accusers. Given the gravity
of this event you would hope that there would be an extremely
cautious set of standards for court room conduct and minute-by-minute
procedures for all parties to follow. Not so. There is no guaranteed
right to counsel or even to cross examine. In regular legal cases
the Judge is the final and ultimate arbiter and insures fairness
and due process. In this case the majority party can overturn
any decision very easily at any time. The Judge becomes a troublesome
bystander, nothing more. It is even possible that the House Managers
can call their witnesses, but the White House will not be able
call rebuttal witnesses. Obviously, the Chief Justice should
step up on this count. In this case witnesses will be deposed,
which is a civil trial procedure, in a criminal trial that is
voluntary. And, amazingly, there is no defined standard of proof
here. "Beyond all reasonable doubt," comes quickly
to mind. But in civil trials, "a preponderance of evidence,"
or "clear and convincing evidence," are both far easier
to "prove." In this case, each senator may decide for
himself or herself what standard to use. The highest standard
is "beyond a reasonable doubt." |