4 ms·

What is the reasoning behind attourneys being unable to direct the police in particular directions? The same failure mode you demonstrate here should be present

by saulrh 11y ago

What is the reasoning behind attourneys being unable to direct the police in particular directions? The same failure mode you demonstrate here should be present in many cases that don't involve electronics. It seems to me like the combination of "police are only required to investigate inculpatory evidence" and "some evidence is only accessible to police" is a fundamental failure of the investigative system and legislation and provides a crippling bias toward convictions. Should I be campaigning about a more general problem that you've clued me into here, or is there something I'm missing about a useful purpose this property serves or a workaround that you haven't mentioned?

dtrizzle 11y ago
Here are some California cases that discuss the issue, but I'm pretty sure federal law and the law of most states is similar: The prosecution has no “duty to conduct the defendant’s investigation for him.” People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal. 4th 263, 288–89 (2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Williams, 58 Cal. 4th 197, 257 (2013); People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal. 4th 1082, 1134 (2007), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Salazar, 35 Cal. 4th 1031, 1048–50 (2005). Because “the law does not ‘impose a general duty on prosecutorial officials to serve as defense investigators,’ ” People v. Moore, 50 Cal. App. 3d 989, 993 (1975) (quoting People v. Beagle, 6 Cal. 3d 441, 450–51 (1972), superseded on other grounds, Cal. Const., art. I, § 28), police are not generally required to collect particular items of evidence, People v. Montes, 58 Cal. 4th 809, 837 (2014); In re Michael L., 39 Cal. 3d 81, 86 (1985) (“police cannot be expected to gather up everything which might eventually prove useful to the defense”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894, 943 (1998) (“as a general matter, due process does not require the police to collect particular items of evidence”), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Callen, 194 Cal. App. 3d 558, 561 (1987) (“[The] law does not impose upon law enforcement agencies the requirement that they take the initiative, or even any affirmative action, in procuring … evidence deemed necessary to the defense of an accused.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Bradley, 159 Cal. App. 3d 399, 407 (1984) (same). Throw the case names and citations into Google Scholar to find the full text of the cases - which provide reasoning (unpersuasive, in my view).
- saulrh 11y ago
  ...Yes, those don't seem to be persuasive, especially when the laws prevent the defendant from properly conducting their investigation by denying them large and important classes of information, and even more so when the police are required to investigate the prosecution's case for them. This seems like a major failure mode for the entire judicial system.

by saulrh 11y ago

dtrizzle 11y ago

Here are some California cases that discuss the issue, but I'm pretty sure federal law and the law of most states is similar: The prosecution has no “duty to conduct the defendant’s investigation for him.” People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal. 4th 263, 288–89 (2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Williams, 58 Cal. 4th 197, 257 (2013); People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal. 4th 1082, 1134 (2007), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Salazar, 35 Cal. 4th 1031, 1048–50 (2005). Because “the law does not ‘impose a general duty on prosecutorial officials to serve as defense investigators,’ ” People v. Moore, 50 Cal. App. 3d 989, 993 (1975) (quoting People v. Beagle, 6 Cal. 3d 441, 450–51 (1972), superseded on other grounds, Cal. Const., art. I, § 28), police are not generally required to collect particular items of evidence, People v. Montes, 58 Cal. 4th 809, 837 (2014); In re Michael L., 39 Cal. 3d 81, 86 (1985) (“police cannot be expected to gather up everything which might eventually prove useful to the defense”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894, 943 (1998) (“as a general matter, due process does not require the police to collect particular items of evidence”), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Callen, 194 Cal. App. 3d 558, 561 (1987) (“[The] law does not impose upon law enforcement agencies the requirement that they take the initiative, or even any affirmative action, in procuring … evidence deemed necessary to the defense of an accused.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Bradley, 159 Cal. App. 3d 399, 407 (1984) (same). Throw the case names and citations into Google Scholar to find the full text of the cases - which provide reasoning (unpersuasive, in my view).

saulrh 11y ago
...Yes, those don't seem to be persuasive, especially when the laws prevent the defendant from properly conducting their investigation by denying them large and important classes of information, and even more so when the police are required to investigate the prosecution's case for them. This seems like a major failure mode for the entire judicial system.