5 ms·
Such techniques should, at a minimum, be disclosed and vetted at trial. In the US, the government is probably going to ask for (and receive) some sort of natio
by alistairSH 6y ago
Such techniques should, at a minimum, be disclosed and vetted at trial.
In the US, the government is probably going to ask for (and receive) some sort of national security waiver to sharing the details. Generally up to the judge to determine if that request is valid.
Or, the law enforcement agency will use parallel construction to get a conviction without exposing their tech.
- Throwaway1771 6y agoThe second one, usually. Safe from potential pesky legal precedents.
- ISL 6y agoIf juries don't accept it, no waiver will ever yield a conviction.
- alistairSH 6y agoTrue, but the judge has likely instructed them that the evidence is acceptable as presented (without technical details of the phone hacking). And jury nullification isn't common in the US.
- ISL 6y agoA single nullification-event would get the attention of attorneys general nationwide.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThe judge can say that the evidence is admissible. It's up to the jury to decide what weight, if any, to place on the evidence. Now, true, the judge is probably not going to let the defense attorney, in closing arguments, say "That evidence came from a hack of the defendant's phone, which is a really invalid thing to do, so you should ignore that part of the evidence." Judges get really unpleasant with attorneys who cross the judge's lines on what they can and can't say in front of the jury. So this would probably be left to the jury to figure out on their own. I'm not sure how likely that is...