tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post112777119087017537..comments2024-01-14T01:51:23.999-05:00Comments on DuckRabbit: Petit is beautiful; grand, not so muchDuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post-1128179608844195592005-10-01T11:13:00.000-04:002005-10-01T11:13:00.000-04:00You mean she could say "Here in the police report ...You mean she could say "Here in the police report it says X and Y, and here in the statute it says X and Y are no-nos." Yes, that would look odd. Plus some of the undercover detectives are kind of cute, in a sort of faux-strung-out way.Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post-1128083563000206312005-09-30T08:32:00.000-04:002005-09-30T08:32:00.000-04:00I don't know about New Jersey, but probably the re...I don't know about New Jersey, but probably the reason why what you heard was not "leading the witness" is because rules of evidence that apply in a trial do not apply in a grand jury hearing. That's generally the rule. So in fact it *was* leading the witness, just that there was nothing wrong with that. I guess that maybe in a grand jury hearing the prosecutor doesn't even need to call any witness at all, and could do all the talking herself, but then it would just look really odd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com