• FenrirIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        After reading your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you know absolutely nothing about the law or how a case would be tried.

        Please do not listen to this person on any legal matters.

      • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 day ago

        they have no obligation to reveal any part of it that would indicate your innocence

        So you just don’t understand how the legal system works at all, amigo. What you described is completely false. One of the first phases of any court case is discovery, where the opposing party supplies the evidence that they have to support their case. Not including this type of evidence during discovery could get an attorney disbarred and a court case thrown out entirely.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 day ago

          To expand on that, the prosecution wouldn’t have an obligation to reveal that evidence to the jury, but they would have an obligation to provide it to the court and/or defense during discovery. And, you know, that seems like something the defense would both use and request if it were missing.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        And which bit of damage did you confess to? They have no evidence of what you confessed to doing.

              • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 day ago

                just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes

                “Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case.”

              • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                21 hours ago

                verifiable evidence that the damage was pre-existing that the note leaver could somehow provide

                Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm…

                  • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.

      • jaybone@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        What if they removed the word “hit” from the note.

        So it just said “I accidentally your car”

        Then you’re not really admitting to anything.

        Would also probably frustrate the guy even more.