October 1

There is a traditional usage in northern Europe where wearing an oak leaf (in your hat or whatever) indicates that you are looking for work. I can't find any sources for this (apparently there's a joke in an Asterix book that relies on the custom, but that's not exactly RS). Can anyone help? HLHJ (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR, because this is tough to search among all the descriptions of Oak Apple Day and the ancient link of oak crowns with kings or gods, and later, military honours. But this sounds like the badges of trades worn at a traditional hiring fair. In Far from the Madding Crowd, Thomas Hardy describes it thus: "At one end of the street stood from two to three hundred blithe and hearty laborers waiting upon Chance...among these, carters and wagoners were distinguished by having a piece of whip-word twisted round their hats; thatchers wore a fragment of woven straw; shepherds held their sheep-crooks in their hands; and thus the situation required was known to the hirers at a glance." This 19th-century description of a guild parade says oak leaves were the traditional symbol of a forester: "...green caps with green feathers and oak leaves in imitation of foresters". But I can't get the right combination of keywords yet to come up with one source that makes a direct link, sorry. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Having written that I thought of trying the search without specifying "oak" and found this: "Hiring fairs are much frequented: those who are to hire wear a green sprig in their hat: and it is very seldom that servants will hire in any other place." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm wishing I had my Astérix books handy. It might be in Le Domaine des Dieux where a Roman party dresses up as bushes to grab the druid. —Tamfang (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Asterix and the Big Fight. One of the roman dresses up as a tree, and befriend a owl Gem fr (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that 10 year US bond yields are about 1.6% while German 10 year yields are -0.6% (i.e. negative yield). How can there be such a huge spread? Does it reflect an expectation that the US is headed towards high inflation? Is the Euro automatically in deflation if yields are negative for extended periods? Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation is a factor, yes; not the only one, though. An other major one is the risk as it is perceived (which explains why different country using the euro have different yield). A few % spread is fairly common

Deflation of Euro? facial negative yields are a puzzle, everyone is struggling to make sense of these, not sure they have any link with deflation, so the answer would be no, it is not automatic :Gem fr (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few percent spread is normal? Hmm, ok. I don't normally follow this stuff so I didn't know that, but it certainly surprises me to hear it. I would have expected them to track very closely (like within 0.1%) on the idea that future inflation/deflation expectations were already priced into the current exchange rate. I will try to understand this a bit better. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation is indeed one, but only one among others, of factors affecting the change of exchange rate. You may also find arbitrage interesting. Gem fr (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the US debt is at 65,600 per capita as of 2018, a serious number, whereas the Germans are extremely careful on how they manage their debt (at only 27,000 per capita). Adjusted to GPD per capita, German debt per capita is 61% of GDP per capita, US debt is 109% of GDP per capita. As a result, lending to Germany is considered (by those bond buyers) to be very safe, whereas lending to the US is a little more risky. Will they be able to repay? Very probably. But are you absolutely sure? As Gem pointed out, the risk is not the same, so lenders expect more in return, since they are taking a risk.--Lgriot (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they will repay (the point of having a sovereign currency is you can always print more money) so I had figured the risk was inflation rather than outright default (other than some theatrical default that's fixed soon after). Am I mistaken? Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if they print so much money, it will cause hyperinflation and it will be worthless money. Which lender wants to be repaid in worthless money? --Lgriot (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

beware, @Lgriot:. US debt includes trillions lend to the Social Security Trust Fund and others (the article is not up to date and mentions $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt as of 2015). German debt do not include that (that is, Germany just do not follow International Public Sector Accounting Standards), if they did, because of pensions in Germany, the debt would be in excess of 300%. Besides, the German gov has few assets, while the US federal gov owns roughly 1/3 of the lands and whatever of value on or below it. Gem fr (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gem, I did not know that. Well, then I am not sure why lenders trust Germany so much! --Lgriot (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The level of debt is not so important as the fact that you are trustworthy. For more than half a century Germany has a history of paying their debt, to struggle to keep the value of the money they use for that, and to ensure the solidity of their economy. So, if you don't trust them, well, who would you trust, anyway? Switzerland, and a few small countries like Norway, probably, but they don't emit so much bonds. Gem fr (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Default and inflation (which, after all, is just another, partial, default) are the major risks, but there are others financial risks. Liquidity risk (that is: if I need money right now, will I struggle to find someone to buy my bond? Do not apply to US bonds), missed opportunity (that is: I may have had won more), etc. Of these, legal risk may be of significance, for a couple of reason: legal cost are high in USA, and US gov has a history of messing up with people all over the world because they used dollar/T-bonds in creative ways (suing them, taxing them, confiscating their assets if they don't comply, etc.), while the German gov will restrict itself within its borders. Gem fr (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Printing excess currency can cause hyperinflation, so defaulting may be preferable, in some cases. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did Charles Evans Hughes ever write any books? If so, which books did he write? Futurist110 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat search finds what looks like a few, plus some volumes of collected speeches and the like. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too did an author search for him in Worldcat and there were lots of hits. Most of the first 10 were collections of his papers, but then there were

• The Supreme Court of the United States: Its Foundation, Methods, and Achievements, an Interpretation, a 2000 reprint of Six lectures on the Supreme Court of the United States, originally published 1928.
• Conditions of Progress in Democratic Government, 2016 reprint, original publication details not shown
• Codification of American International Law, published 1926

and I decided to stop there. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Achievement gaps in the United States#Deaf vs. hearing I managed to find data which disaggregated deaf status from cognitive and physical disabilities which sometimes co-occur. I was wondering if anyone could point out data on students with physical disabilities (like mobility challenges)? I could find data that mixed all types of disabilities, including both physical and learning disabilities (which raise somewhat different policy questions). We don't seem to have any information on achievement gaps in other countries (or at least that link is a redirect) but more data from anywhere would be interesting. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also USA, but lots of detailed data separating "disability categories" in this. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on reddit[1] writes about Amber Guyger:

I was honestly surprised she took the stand at all. Nearly every lawyer I've talked to said you should NEVER have the defendant go on the stand. There are even constitutional protections against it. I was shocked when I heard she would be testifying herself.

Is that really true, that putting the defendant on the stand is bad legal strategy (I know that it is not required, per 5th amdt)? I had thought it was one of the tougher decisions the defense has to make in any given case. Are there statistics about it? Rules of thumb besides "never do it"? I haven't followed many criminal trials, but I'm sure I've heard of some where the defendant testified. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that seems like way too strong of a statement. The main factor would be how sympathetic the jury will be to the defendant. If you have a kindly old grandmother, maybe accused of a mercy killing of her elderly, terminally ill husband, it might be a good strategy. But if you have somebody who looks and acts like Charles Manson, complete with swastika carved in his face, then no, not the best choice. And with the old lady, if the prosecution tries to rattle her, they will just make themselves look bad, not her. SinisterLefty (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, "never" is obviously way too strong a word, so I'm really asking how unusual it is. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the defendant's choice, not the lawyer's. I will say that I usually advised clients not to take the stand, but there were times when they made that choice, or I had to advise it because the prosecution had very plainly put on a strong case and I saw nothing that could shake that except the defendant's testimony. It's one of those things you have to play by ear and give advice as seems to suit the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it throws a wild card into the proceedings. Not a good idea if you have already won, but if it's your only chance, why not ? SinisterLefty (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In most western democracies it's not the defendant's job to prove their innocence; it's the prosecution's job to prove their guilt. That said, it's sometimes useful for the defendant to take the stand in order to water down the prosecution's case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know the defendant can opt not to testify. I wondered how often they actually choose to exercise that right. The answer seems to be "most of the time". That is informative and I'm thankful for the answers. Usually when I've seen someone "take the 5th" (refuse to testify) it has been in something like Congressional testimony rather than a courtroom trial, so the subtext is much different. It does sound like Guyger's testimony worked against her pretty badly. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's just not much of a way to excuse walking into the wrong house and shooting the homeowner to death while he eats ice cream on his couch. Maybe an insanity plea ? Her only defense seemed to be "Oops !" Also, the special treatment she got from the police department didn't help her situation, turning the public against her even more.

There's the argument that she felt her life was in danger, but the counter to that is that no reasonable person would have felt that, as it was obviously not her house, and the man she shot was unarmed. I have to wonder if they gave her that classic police test where cardboard cutouts of various criminals and civilians pop up, and if she successfully shot at the armed ones only, then.

I once got into the wrong car (same model as mine), but figured it out in about 2 seconds. And if there was somebody in the car, I sure wouldn't have attacked them, I would have gotten out of there as quickly as possible, whether I thought it was my car or not. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think invoking the Castle doctrine backfired. (I didn't watch most of the trial.) Intrinsic to the Castle doctrine, though unstated, is knowing where you are. It is understood that every person in their home, knows that they are in their home. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, if he had also had a gun and shot her to death, then he might have been able to use that defense. After all it was his apartment, and she was at the door, so she could retreat, but he could not. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They might have had a shootout and then both could use the defense. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News mentions that since the judge permitted the castle doctrine defense, that gives the defense one less thing to potentially appeal about.[2] I'd hope that even if it had worked, the most it could do is scale back the amount of mens rea that the jury found. It would be crazy to let it turn the shooting into a justified one. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a lawyer’s perspective, with client attorney privilege your client should tell you what really happened and you should be able to tell if they are guilty or not. As a defence attorney you still have an obligation to provide them with the best defence you can. This could be a plea bargain, or it could be a not guilty plea if the counter argument is strong enough. Now, if you know your client is guilty it would be unwise to have them testify as under cross examination, they may be caught in one of their lies thereby harming the defence. On the contrary, if you know your client is innocent, it is still unwise to have them testify as the prosecutions job is to pressurize them and cause them to slip up, this could happen to almost anyone under enough pressure no matter how honest you are. This is why the rule of thumb applies. Better to not have them testify at all. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the basis for your first sentence? Are you a lawyer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of your business. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! In pretty much any jurisdiction a lawyer can defend a client who they are convinced is guilty, but they cannot (for practical reasons) do so if they know that the client is guilty, because the client has confessed to them. If they did so, they would not be able to say to the court, "My client is innocent" (a basic practical requirement for arguing the case) because to do so knowingly would then be perjury on the lawyer's part[3] (there's some jurisdictional variation here, as lawyers have responsibilities to the court, but they're not sworn in court, nor are they giving evidence). Lawyers are well-paid, but they're not well-paid enough to knowingly perjure themselves for the benefit of a single client. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, committing the act and being guilty of the crime are two separate, independent things. A person may have committed an act, but not be guilty of the crime of which they are accused based around that act. The crime and the act are different things. For example, a person may be accused of the crime of murder for the act of having fired a bullet into the head of another person. Even if the person has told their lawyer they unequivocally did that act, the lawyer can still organize and present a case that they are not guilty of murder. For example, if the person acted in self defense, or if they were not responsible for their actions (insanity defense), or any of a number of other reasons. --Jayron32 14:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The defense doesn't have to claim that their client is innocent, just that it can't be proven that they are guilty. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's the point. A defence lawyer has to be able to address the court and say, "My client is innocent!" or else they will be seriously disadvantaged as a credible advocate for them. Yet, if they know their client to be guilty, the cost of doing so (perjury) would make it impossible to do so.

There are of course other subtleties: the lawyer may not believe their client's confession, they may hold them to be guilty of manslaughter rather than a confession to murder, or they may believe that the charges are legally inapplicable. But simply being unprovable isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Perjury" — not exactly, I think. As I understand it, counsel's arguments are not given under oath and do not constitute testimony. So counsel cannot be liable for perjury per se.

From my extensive experience watching TV legal dramas, my understanding is that the lawyer would instead face discipline (up to and including disbarment) from the regulators of legal ethics, usually the bar association.

And as you say, this is apparently only if the lawyer knows that his/her arguments are false. Lawyers are apparently free to argue things they don't remotely believe, as long as they don't actually "know", whatever that means. --Trovatore (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as a practical matter, how would they ever establish what the lawyer knew ? There's attorney-client privilege and even if a disgruntled defendant told everyone what he told the lawyer, he wouldn't make a very credible witness. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was a cop. The jury expects a cop would take the stand, and instructing them not to hold it against her, though the judge would do it, is something of a waste of time. Second, there were presumably some members of the jury who the defense hoped would find her credible and at least break the charge down to manslaughter. Third, by the point in the trial where you have to decide (the defendant would probably be the last defense witness) the judge has already refused to dismiss the prosecution case so it's almost certainly going to the jury. Sometimes you have to advise the defendant to take the stand despite the risks. Because you've formed the conclusion you have some chance of winning (or at least breaking down the charge or a hung jury) if you do but less if you don't. And it is her call anyway, a call on which she has probably taken advice from other people, such as family members and the police union.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Our article only mention that the victim was native from St Lucia. I guess this means he appears African American, but this is not stated. Is my guessing right, and, is so, was it mentioned during the trial (or in the media)? Gem fr (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article no longer only says that. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to keep from the jury. Probably a photograph was an early exhibit, the autopsy surgeon would mention it, many other times, and the cops who visited the crime scene would probably mention it. The prosecutor might even mention it in their opening.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have to prove that a homicide occurred, right? Which might require crime scene photos. We know you are a lawyer. Is 81.131.40.58 being factual with his "your client should tell you what really happened" comment, or is he just playing lawyer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Homicide" has different scientific and legal meanings. Scientifically it just means one person killed another (including war, executions, etc.), while legally they add in all sorts of issues like intent, competence, etc. to determine if the person who killed another is legally responsible for that act. If not, there are other options short of homicide, like manslaughter or finding them not guilty. Often, as in this case, the fact that the defendant killed the victim is not contested, thus no evidence of this is required. Of course, the precise details on how they died often relate to issues of intent. For example, multiple gunshots makes an accident unlikely, while an apparently poorly aimed gunshot that is nonetheless fatal, like a shot to the thigh, might tend to support it being an accident, if that was the claim. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. The point being that they can't just declare that a crime occurred and only have to prove that the defendant did it. They first have to prove that a crime occurred. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to prove that an event occurred if both the defense and prosecution agree that it did. See stipulation. If it's really obvious that the event occurred, in this case that the man was shot by the woman and died, then the defense denying that fact would just undermine the credibility of the defense. Better to just focus on parts of the case they have a reasonable chance of winning. (Although some rich defendants with hopeless cases will just use every opportunity to delay the verdict further, possibly with the goal of making the prosecution more willing to make a deal to get it over with.) SinisterLefty (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecution still has to prove the event was a crime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was some crime committed was quite obvious ("Is there any circumstance under which it's legal to walk into a random house and shoot the resident to death ?", "No."). The only Q was whether it was negligent homicide, manslaughter, or some degree of murder. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're jumping to some conclusions. It's clear you're not a lawyer, so let's leave it to those who are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred not to get locked in ethically, nor the client to get locked into a story. I would not ask directly, "Do you believe yourself to be guilty?" I'd like to know the truth, or at least as close to it as my client is likely to get but I'd be very careful about how I get there. There's the exceptional case, for example I remember one probation violation where I only talked in very general terms to my client about admitting it or not because I saw it was brought too late and knew I could beat it on that. So yeah, you want to have your client's version, but you don't lead him to say "I'm guilty". So it's hard to judge what the IP is saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]