3 ms·
Actually the opposite: you would expect courts to toss out (and/or: opposition to successfully challenge) all evidence unless chain of custody is guaranteed. T
by Beldin 5y ago
Actually the opposite: you would expect courts to toss out (and/or: opposition to successfully challenge) all evidence unless chain of custody is guaranteed.
That's a very important part of "innocent till proven guilty".
Your suggestion flips this around, thus leading to "guilty till proven innocent". Perhaps that is how things stand in practice in the USA. I don't think that that is how things should be.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoIt’s not “guilty until proven innocent” to keep evidence if the defense can’t show it’s been compromised. As a logical extreme example, you are suggesting that courts forbid eyewitness testimony, since it’s always possible that they are mistaken or lying.
- Tostino 5y agoNot GP, but I would highly prefer they give eye witness testimony much less weight than they do today.