4 ms·

> Wow. Like, I completely fail to comprehend how it's legal in the US judiciary system to ignore any piece of available hard evidence in a case that is punishab

> Wow. Like, I completely fail to comprehend how it's legal in the US judiciary system to ignore any piece of available hard evidence in a case that is punishable by execution? It wasn't "completely ignored". It was presented to the court and the test was requested, and the request was denied. Evidentiary rules are complicated and subject to abuse, yes, but they protect all of us. It's not like we'd be better off if discovery was unlimited. Your complaint isn't about the way courts treat evidence, it's with the punishment. Death is final and not subject to appeal. And fundamentally that's an argument for why it shouldn't be available to courts at all. But really, there's nothing especially wrong with evidentiary process in US criminal law. There are problems with it like any bureaucracy, but on the whole it does pretty well.

g8oz 5y ago
When the death penalty is involved I would argue that discovery should in fact be unlimited
- btown 5y ago
  More generally there should be more legal paths towards stays of execution even if new evidence does not yet on its own reach the standard necessary for an appeal or retrial. Not having these paths to me seems cruel and unusual.
- carlmr 5y ago
  Even for a life sentence, evidence like this shouldn't be ignored. Eyewitness evidence is one of the most fallible types of evidence.
Buttons840 5y ago
> It's not like we'd be better off if discovery was unlimited. Why not? Why shouldn't the defense be able to present all evidence in their possession?
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  Because evidence could literally be anything in the universe and no limits on what is able to be presented opens up abuse via random shit
- beerandt 5y ago
  "Defendant requests discovery for defense's exhibit "A": the entire contents of the Library of Congress. Since the defense has not received the subpoenaed material, the case can not go to trial and the defendant should be released."

g8oz 5y ago

When the death penalty is involved I would argue that discovery should in fact be unlimited

btown 5y ago
More generally there should be more legal paths towards stays of execution even if new evidence does not yet on its own reach the standard necessary for an appeal or retrial. Not having these paths to me seems cruel and unusual.
carlmr 5y ago
Even for a life sentence, evidence like this shouldn't be ignored. Eyewitness evidence is one of the most fallible types of evidence.

Buttons840 5y ago

> It's not like we'd be better off if discovery was unlimited. Why not? Why shouldn't the defense be able to present all evidence in their possession?

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Because evidence could literally be anything in the universe and no limits on what is able to be presented opens up abuse via random shit
beerandt 5y ago
"Defendant requests discovery for defense's exhibit "A": the entire contents of the Library of Congress. Since the defense has not received the subpoenaed material, the case can not go to trial and the defendant should be released."