3 ms·

If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me

If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me of that right, by lying in court. The fact that it's common shouldn't make us lose track of that.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
No, you don't have an absolute right to know all the details of how an investigation was conducted. You don't necessarily get to see the intelligence that supported a search warrant, for example.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- monocasa 6y ago
  You do in the US.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    Even in the US there are exceptions, like the state secrets privilege: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
laughinghan 6y ago
This isn't a very good argument against parallel construction, because you are able to contest all of the evidence being used in court against you. I don't think arguing against the legitimacy of the investigative means used to acquire evidence is ever an admissible argument by which to contest that evidence before a jury. If those investigative means were a poisonous tree, that's an argument you make to the judge to preclude admission of that evidence in the first place, before either side gets to contest any evidence. I think lawyering over whether parallel construction is lying or not is tactically silly. You'll be on much firmer ground arguing that parallel constructions completely undercuts the point of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which is to disincentivize illegal means of investigation.
- deftnerd 6y ago
  that's incorrect, you're allowed to also have access to evidence the prosecutor doesn't reference directly. For instance, if there is some evidence that someone else committed a crime such as existence of security footage or DNA evidence, they're required to produce it along with all the other evidence during discovery. Of course they might not use that conflicting evidence in court, but it was gathered and thus is legally obligated to be given to the defense. Withholding evidence from the defense is very incompatible with our justice system.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

No, you don't have an absolute right to know all the details of how an investigation was conducted. You don't necessarily get to see the intelligence that supported a search warrant, for example.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monocasa 6y ago
You do in the US.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  Even in the US there are exceptions, like the state secrets privilege: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

laughinghan 6y ago

This isn't a very good argument against parallel construction, because you are able to contest all of the evidence being used in court against you. I don't think arguing against the legitimacy of the investigative means used to acquire evidence is ever an admissible argument by which to contest that evidence before a jury. If those investigative means were a poisonous tree, that's an argument you make to the judge to preclude admission of that evidence in the first place, before either side gets to contest any evidence. I think lawyering over whether parallel construction is lying or not is tactically silly. You'll be on much firmer ground arguing that parallel constructions completely undercuts the point of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which is to disincentivize illegal means of investigation.

deftnerd 6y ago
that's incorrect, you're allowed to also have access to evidence the prosecutor doesn't reference directly. For instance, if there is some evidence that someone else committed a crime such as existence of security footage or DNA evidence, they're required to produce it along with all the other evidence during discovery. Of course they might not use that conflicting evidence in court, but it was gathered and thus is legally obligated to be given to the defense. Withholding evidence from the defense is very incompatible with our justice system.