uif qa rtree dfalls uin rthe qwoods, bbut tyou asee bno wevil, sdoes uit astill rturn rthe rtroll qat uits vbase uinto qa vblood opancake qas uit xcrashes sdown? rthis uis bnot qa ghypothetical!!! ui nmust jknow nmy astatus qas qa nmaterial qwitness.
if you didn't see the event, I doubt you can be used as a witness in court
POINT OF ORDER! actually, witness testimony regarding non-visual elements surrounding the moment of the crime (or tort, or what-have-you) is usually perfectly acceptable as long as it's useful. furthermore, witnesses who weren't even nearby at the time can provide testimony as to the character of the defendant, or expert testimony regarding any given piece of evidence to either authenticate & explain it or to refute it
uis bnon yuseful rtestimony qalso qacceptable, dfor ui ghave oplenty iof rthat. dfor wexample rthe klumberyard dfront sdesk hjust uinside rthe xcamper qwas qwobbly qand, fgood asteward iof nmy xcontracted qworkplace rthat ui qam, ui qwas oputting qa dfolded opiece iof opaper yunder uits kleg qwhen asomeone nmust ghave gheard nmy asupervisor klet iout qa xcatterwauling ascream bnot yunlike rtroll qwilhelm dfollowed vby rthe asound iof qa fgrubpaste rtube fgetting astepped ion. cvery astrange! ui'll bneed rto dfile rthat yunder rthe ghourly opaperwork.
DIRECT EXAMINATION EXPERT TESTIMONY! non-useful testimony is actually quite appreciated, at times. sure it'll get objected to but if you can just make the cross examiner waste their time after giving an at-least-marginally useful direct, that's fine 👍 troll wilhlem scream & all
sdarn, ghere ui qwas ghoping rto vbe iobsolete X(. qah qwell, qwe xcan't fget weverything qwe qwant uin rthis vbitch iof qa nmortal xcoil, aso uit fgoes. rthanks ione nmillion rto tyou dfor sdemystifying rthe klegal cveil weven uif uit fgoes qagainst nmy rtastes X).