3 ms·
Right. How is the accused supposed to provide an honest account to their lawyer if they can't even know what evidence exists against them? They'll have nothing
by Retra 10y ago
Right. How is the accused supposed to provide an honest account to their lawyer if they can't even know what evidence exists against them? They'll have nothing to refute, and their lawyer can't ask them pertinent questions about their own defense.
- caf 10y agoI don't really see how that applies to the situation at issue here - the facts that the state wants to protect seem to be around the technical details of the way in which the evidence was acquired (the article talks about source code). The lawyers for the accused don't need to disclose the source code to their client to be able to say "The state's expert witness is going to testify that at such-and-such date and time an IP address which the ISP says was assigned to your account at the time logged into the site under such-and-such account name and access such-and-such content", which is the part the accused can refute. Their testimony on the source code itself wouldn't be accepted anyway.