W3=Wiretap Willie Wade

PRock

Top Member
Insider
Feb 9, 2010
4,563
8,846
WARNING: Very long response ahead. Use your fast forward button liberally.

I am not sure how yahoo publishing the tape's contents or whether the NCAA asked for the tapes would impact the reliability of the evidence. Frank never denied that the tape was authentic or claimed that he did not say what was reported.

The tape was offered as evidence by Emanuel "Book" Richardson, a defendant in a federal trial, over Richardson's corruption. Richardson was apparently trying to argue that "everyone does it" by showing how corrupt Wade is. The judge (correctly in my view) concluded (after the tape was played in open court) that it was not relevant to Richardson's case and excluded it. He never suggested that the tape was not competent evidence of Wade's misdeeds.

As for the question whether it is hearsay, I'll give a little tutorial on the rule against hearsay on the off chance someone might find it interesting, but tl/dr, it probably isn't hearsay, but even if it were, it would almost certainly be admissible in a case involving Wade.

Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered "for the truth of the matter asserted." So if I testified that on a day in question Mistachill said "I can't find my umbrella," the statement would (likely) not be admissible to show that Mistachill couldn't find his umbrella on that day, but would be admissible to show circumstantially that it was raining or that rain was expected that day. Complicated I know.

The general rule excluding hearsay from evidence is further complicated by the fact that hearsay is defined to exclude (among other things) statements of opposing parties (a party's out of court statements can (often? usually?) be used against them). Like Frank's admission that he is a lying, cheating bum.

Also, the rule against hearsay is riddled with exceptions. The federal rules list 25 of them. (google Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804 and 807). The last exception, 807, is that hearsay is admissible, even if no other exception applies, if the source of the statement is otherwise reliable. Here, that would be an FBI wiretap.

So, very longwinded explanation of why the rule about hearsay is utterly, completely irrelevant here, as it is in 99.999% of instances in which non-lawyers use it to dismiss information. People are convicted and sent to prison, or even death row, based solely on hearsay evidence every single day.
Nice explanation, you should teach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mistachill
Jul 14, 2011
1,163
1,538
Almost never happens in the US, and no national security information was involved in Book Richardson's trial. So no.
Welp then I take back all that I have said. If the notes on that recording can be considered admissible in a trial about Wade then the only thing the NCAA could lean on is that they dont have a "firm" dollar amount included.
 
May 19, 2015
4,988
12,469
WARNING: Very long response ahead. Use your fast forward button liberally.

I am not sure how yahoo publishing the tape's contents or whether the NCAA asked for the tapes would impact the reliability of the evidence. Frank never denied that the tape was authentic or claimed that he did not say what was reported.

The tape was offered as evidence by Emanuel "Book" Richardson, a defendant in a federal trial, over Richardson's corruption. Richardson was apparently trying to argue that "everyone does it" by showing how corrupt Wade is. The judge (correctly in my view) concluded (after the tape was played in open court) that it was not relevant to Richardson's case and excluded it. He never suggested that the tape was not competent evidence of Wade's misdeeds.

As for the question whether it is hearsay, I'll give a little tutorial on the rule against hearsay on the off chance someone might find it interesting, but tl/dr, it probably isn't hearsay, but even if it were, it would almost certainly be admissible in a case involving Wade.

Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered "for the truth of the matter asserted." So if I testified that on a day in question Mistachill said "I can't find my umbrella," the statement would (likely) not be admissible to show that Mistachill couldn't find his umbrella on that day, but would be admissible to show circumstantially that it was raining or that rain was expected that day. Complicated I know.

The general rule excluding hearsay from evidence is further complicated by the fact that hearsay is defined to exclude (among other things) statements of opposing parties (a party's out of court statements can (often? usually?) be used against them). Like Frank's admission that he is a lying, cheating bum.

Also, the rule against hearsay is riddled with exceptions. The federal rules list 25 of them. (google Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804 and 807). The last exception, 807, is that hearsay is admissible, even if no other exception applies, if the source of the statement is otherwise reliable. Here, that would be an FBI wiretap.

So, very longwinded explanation of why the rule about hearsay is utterly, completely irrelevant here, as it is in 99.999% of instances in which non-lawyers use it to dismiss information. People are convicted and sent to prison, or even death row, based solely on hearsay evidence every single day.
YOU'RE HIRED!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: N Mollen
May 4, 2012
7,300
4,491
Welp then I take back all that I have said. If the notes on that recording can be considered admissible in a trial about Wade then the only thing the NCAA could lean on is that they dont have a "firm" dollar amount included.
Wade tape not presented in trial, it was deemed not material to what was being tried. Thats why t hff e defense leaked it.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,464
58,886
Wade tape not presented in trial, it was deemed not material to what was being tried. Thats why t hff e defense leaked it.
"The Wade and Townsend recordings were deemed inadmissible by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, but the transcripts were read aloud in the courtroom in Manhattan on Tuesday morning."

But just go ahead and keep making stuff up. It is entertaining.

 

Ululating Daddy

Top Member
Jan 13, 2016
1,569
4,358
Meh, just another P5 coach pushing the envelope as far as he dares. His W/L record is far more relevant to his job security, at least until a federal prosecutor secures an indictment. I ceased caring what happens to him on November 14th last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaNgMyPrOgRaM