3 ms·
Yes, that would be my take on it. The government can still make use of inadmissible or illegally obtained evidence. The evidence here was obtained legally, so
by downandout 11y ago
Yes, that would be my take on it. The government can still make use of inadmissible or illegally obtained evidence. The evidence here was obtained legally, so it will likely be used to bolster the case against the defendants and anyone that may have assisted them.
Even in the case of illegally obtained evidence, there are techniques like parallel construction [1] that they can use to make their cases. They also have the so-called "clean hands" exception, which allows allows the government to introduce evidence into trial that was illegally obtained by a third party when the government did not play any role in obtaining that information [2].
The US legal system was designed to seem exceedingly fair on its surface, while allowing for unconscionable abuses by those skilled in maneuvering through its loopholes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
[2] http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/ledger-vol-1-no-2-2-coffman/ http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/ledger-vol-1-no-2-2-coffman/
- Retric 11y agoParallel construction is not legal. It's goal is to disguise the origin of information, but just because you get away with breaking the law that does not mean what you did was legal. Proving this is very hard though.
- cperciva 11y agoparallel construction You're probably thinking of "inevitable discovery", which says that illegally obtained information can be used anyway if the prosecution can show that they would have obtained it anyway. Parallel construction is something intelligence agencies do in order to hide how they obtained information in the first place (whether legal or otherwise).
- nxzero 11y agoFBI, local law enforcement, etc use parallel construction too; for examples, look into how the FBI works with local law enforcement using tech like Stringray.