Holy crap, your publisher is going to hate you. I’m really loving the theme, though.
That was friggin’ awesome!
…holy crap. Wow.
I’m really loving these flowcharts.
That was pretty good! A little hard to follow which line was which, but it all made sense in the end.
Also, the second-to-last image is broken. The one right after the sharks…
“And then the accused sinks all the way to the bottom and is fed to Squiddo, the Dark Lord of the Ocean, who devours those identified in court! So that’s why this ID should be disallowed, your honor!”
“…where did you get your law license?”
“Here, your honor, I have a note.”
So if I understand this chart, then if an I.D. procedure was suggestive, but didn’t affect the reliability of the I.D., then the I.D. comes in. If the I.D. is unreliable, then it doesn’t come in. So what is the point of the “suggestiveness” evaluation. Wouldn’t it be simpler to go straight to reliability?
I think it’s because suggestiveness gets weighed against reliability. A situation where there’s not a lot going on the reliability side might still come in if there’s nothing on the suggestiveness side, because even that light weight on the one side outweighs the other.
I see someone else reads XKCD.
So the field is stacked against throwing out eyewitness identification, so as long as there’s at least SOME reason to allow it, it is going to be allowed.
Sounds almost like what DC suggested last strip.
Seems like it would be that way with any evidence, though.
If there’s a reason to allow it, and no compelling reason to completely disallow it, it goes in.
And then it’s on Pi and DC to argue and convince the jury about what story to tell with the evidence they have!
I always love the flow charts!
Fingerpointin’ Falls, is that near Blamin’ Bluffs?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *