Disagree.

 

Humor me, are you Pro Choice or Pro Life?

California is probably one of the states that has a law that you have inform someone if you are recording them. This is why we get the 'the call may be recorded' warning messages for most support lines.

 

I wish we had a link that could add clarity on the law(s) being broken in this case.

 

Anyone?

Post #40...California is an "All Parties Consent State", meaning that all parties must know they are being recorded. In this case only one party was aware thus the violation of California law.

Kentucky for instance is a "One Party Consent State", meaning I can record a private conversation with anyone legally...within reason.

 

Here is a state by state breakdown of the Law.

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/LAWS-ON-RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf

Humor me, are you Pro Choice or Pro Life?

 

Odd question but, pro life.

Odd question but, pro life.

 

If you were going to sit on Jury that had anything to do with Planned Parenthood it would be extremely relevant.

 

How about this, do you think the illegally obtained "evidence" should be allowed to be used against anyone in a criminal case? A civil case?

If you were going to sit on Jury that had anything to do with Planned Parenthood it would be extremely relevant.

 

How about this, do you think the illegally obtained "evidence" should be allowed to be used against anyone in a criminal case? A civil case?

 

One couldn't use it in a criminal case obviously.

 

Don't think the same rules apply in a civil case.

 

I disagree with your assertion about setting on a jury. It would be no different than a pro choice person sitting on the jury. If both do their sworn duty, the will only base their decision on the evidence presented and the law.

One couldn't use it in a criminal case obviously.

 

Don't think the same rules apply in a civil case.

 

I disagree with your assertion about setting on a jury. It would be no different than a pro choice person sitting on the jury. If both do their sworn duty, the will only base their decision on the evidence presented and the law.

 

If I was the Defense Attorney you would be out in Voir Dire.

If I was the Defense Attorney you would be out in Voir Dire.

 

If I were a prosecutor, the pro choice would be out.

 

Good thing each each side gets X number of strikes.

One couldn't use it in a criminal case obviously.

 

Don't think the same rules apply in a civil case.

 

I disagree with your assertion about setting on a jury. It would be no different than a pro choice person sitting on the jury. If both do their sworn duty, the will only base their decision on the evidence presented and the law.

 

Doesn't sound by the last two posts that there's a lot of confidence that this happens.

Doesn't sound by the last two posts that there's a lot of confidence that this happens.

 

It isn't done in the appeals court or supreme court at times, how do we expect jurors not to..

Doesn't sound by the last two posts that there's a lot of confidence that this happens.

 

Just the way trials go. Each side tries to get a jury that they think will be more generous to them.