22 ms·

[Interestingly] The judge Robert Holdman who shot down his appeal because of this fraud, has a (IMHO) history of being overly harsh. http://webcache.googleuser

[Interestingly] The judge Robert Holdman who shot down his appeal because of this fraud, has a (IMHO) history of being overly harsh. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVEd8DsJ:www.judicialreports.com/2007/12/post_82.php http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZrFEGVE... (search for 'Holdman' on that page)

joe_the_user 16y ago
When I reading the story, that part was just screaming at me. In my limited knowledge of the law, the guy got incredibly lucky in having illegally gain evidence accepted in a court of law (from a defendant). It's mind blowing to think about being in a situation where the only way to get justice is to break the law. It sounds good in action movie but in real life, it's appalling...
- yxhuvud 16y ago
  Being a foreigner, it's mind blowing that how evidence is procured matter. Evidence is evidence. If there were illegal actions while collecting it, then those actions should be prosecuted, but evidence is still evidence and should be used.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 16y ago
    As far as I know the legal system, in say, Germany doesn't recognize illegally gained evidence either.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      The story is slightly different in each country. "In Germany, statutory law mandates exclusion of statements obtained from suspects or witnesses by force, deception, hypnosis, or similar illicit methods of interrogation" http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199nYdqIC http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ... But "Because deterrence of police misconduct is not the rationale for exclusion of evidence, German courts tend to admit evidence obtained through illegal searches "http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199noHnXO http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ...
  - jarin 16y ago
    In the US, we (as a collective) hold sacrosanct the rights of a person against illegal searches and self-incrimination, as well as the 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine. The idea is that it's better to let a criminal go than to convict an innocent person. Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place and reducing opportunities for corruption. Of course, in this case it didn't work out so well, but you would see a lot more stories like this if sources of evidence weren't important.
    - dkarl 16y ago
      Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place Exactly, and arguably it's the only effective deterrent, because courts will be very lenient towards law enforcement officers doing their job, simply out of pragmatism. Law enforcement officers don't all have a precise understanding of the law, there are gray areas in the law anyway, and on top of that, the law is constantly evolving. Prosecuting police officers for illegal searches would be harmful, impractical, and _extremely_ unpopular, so the use of illegal searches and evidence obtained from them would become routine if that were the only deterrent.
  - vilya 16y ago
    I believe (but cannot prove) that it's to prevent the police abusing their powers. If illegally gathered evidence were admissible, then they could argue - with some justification - that the end justifies the means.
  - nokcha 16y ago
    In the US, the courts crafted the "suppression of evidence" doctrine as a remedy to violations of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches/seizures. The courts didn't have the power to punish the law-enforcement agents who violated the Fourth Amendment (because there didn't exist an appropriate statute criminalizing the behavior or because the prosecutor was unwilling to bring charges), so instead they refused to allow such illegally gathered evidence to be presented at trial. Note that evidence gathered by a private actor (independently of any gov't investigation) is not suppressible under this doctrine.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I love anti-American criticism. Sure, most of the time, foreigners complain that we don't respect people's rights enough. But some of the time, they complain that we respect people's rights too much. The US has abnormally strong civil liberties as far as interacting with your local police department goes, paired with a federal government that does everything they think they can get away with when it comes to kidnapping foreigners or feeling you up at the airport. It's a very strange system filled with contradictions. EDIT: Anti-American was probably too strong a term for it. My point was just that it's interesting how the American government is criticized on both accounts.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      I can't see how the GP is anti-American. Being "mind-blowing" is good thing, at least that's what I remember from Steve Jobs.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        Anti-American was a poor way to put it--criticism of the American system of government would perhaps be more precise.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    On the other side, this is a actually very good thing. If cops aren't allowed to use any evidence they gather illegally, it puts a damper on their enthusiasm for such illegality.

joe_the_user 16y ago

When I reading the story, that part was just screaming at me. In my limited knowledge of the law, the guy got incredibly lucky in having illegally gain evidence accepted in a court of law (from a defendant). It's mind blowing to think about being in a situation where the only way to get justice is to break the law. It sounds good in action movie but in real life, it's appalling...

yxhuvud 16y ago
Being a foreigner, it's mind blowing that how evidence is procured matter. Evidence is evidence. If there were illegal actions while collecting it, then those actions should be prosecuted, but evidence is still evidence and should be used.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 16y ago
  As far as I know the legal system, in say, Germany doesn't recognize illegally gained evidence either.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    The story is slightly different in each country. "In Germany, statutory law mandates exclusion of statements obtained from suspects or witnesses by force, deception, hypnosis, or similar illicit methods of interrogation" http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199nYdqIC http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ... But "Because deterrence of police misconduct is not the rationale for exclusion of evidence, German courts tend to admit evidence obtained through illegal searches "http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparative-Aspects-Control-police.html#ixzz199noHnXO http://law.jrank.org/pages/899/Criminal-Procedure-Comparativ...
- jarin 16y ago
  In the US, we (as a collective) hold sacrosanct the rights of a person against illegal searches and self-incrimination, as well as the 'innocent until proven guilty' doctrine. The idea is that it's better to let a criminal go than to convict an innocent person. Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place and reducing opportunities for corruption. Of course, in this case it didn't work out so well, but you would see a lot more stories like this if sources of evidence weren't important.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    Disallowing illegally obtained evidence also has the effect of discouraging the police from illegally obtaining evidence in the first place Exactly, and arguably it's the only effective deterrent, because courts will be very lenient towards law enforcement officers doing their job, simply out of pragmatism. Law enforcement officers don't all have a precise understanding of the law, there are gray areas in the law anyway, and on top of that, the law is constantly evolving. Prosecuting police officers for illegal searches would be harmful, impractical, and _extremely_ unpopular, so the use of illegal searches and evidence obtained from them would become routine if that were the only deterrent.
- vilya 16y ago
  I believe (but cannot prove) that it's to prevent the police abusing their powers. If illegally gathered evidence were admissible, then they could argue - with some justification - that the end justifies the means.
- nokcha 16y ago
  In the US, the courts crafted the "suppression of evidence" doctrine as a remedy to violations of the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches/seizures. The courts didn't have the power to punish the law-enforcement agents who violated the Fourth Amendment (because there didn't exist an appropriate statute criminalizing the behavior or because the prosecutor was unwilling to bring charges), so instead they refused to allow such illegally gathered evidence to be presented at trial. Note that evidence gathered by a private actor (independently of any gov't investigation) is not suppressible under this doctrine.
- philwelch 16y ago
  I love anti-American criticism. Sure, most of the time, foreigners complain that we don't respect people's rights enough. But some of the time, they complain that we respect people's rights too much. The US has abnormally strong civil liberties as far as interacting with your local police department goes, paired with a federal government that does everything they think they can get away with when it comes to kidnapping foreigners or feeling you up at the airport. It's a very strange system filled with contradictions. EDIT: Anti-American was probably too strong a term for it. My point was just that it's interesting how the American government is criticized on both accounts.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    I can't see how the GP is anti-American. Being "mind-blowing" is good thing, at least that's what I remember from Steve Jobs.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Anti-American was a poor way to put it--criticism of the American system of government would perhaps be more precise.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  On the other side, this is a actually very good thing. If cops aren't allowed to use any evidence they gather illegally, it puts a damper on their enthusiasm for such illegality.