Not exact matches
This narrative is so astoundingly
false from so many directions, the fact
such a dialog is even occurring is a true
testimony to the willful (paid) blindness and insanity of the «science» community.
How would
such an exchange demonstrate that Wegman's
testimony was either (a)
false, (b) misleading or (c) unsupported?
Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the
testimony of
such a client where the lawyer reasonably believes but does not know that the
testimony will be
false.
«The law encourages the correction of erroneous and even intentionally
false statements on the part of a witness, and perjury will not be predicated upon
such statements when the witness, before the submission of the case, fully corrects his
testimony.»