3 ms·
As I understand, the evidence wasn't owned by prosecution, but by Apple. It's like saying "the truth is out there", which is technically true, but shouldn't cou
by GoblinSlayer 5y ago
As I understand, the evidence wasn't owned by prosecution, but by Apple. It's like saying "the truth is out there", which is technically true, but shouldn't count as evidence until collected.
- netizen-936824 5y agoThen why was it used for an arrest warrant? Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Or can you just claim to have video evidence of a murder to get someone you don't like arrested?
- TeMPOraL 5y ago> Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Examined and secured. Having evidence in official custody should be a prerequisite for using it in an official capacity - or stuff like this happens.
- ashtonkem 5y agoGenerally it should be secured before an arrest warrant is issued, examined before a trial You don’t have a right to fight an arrest warrant. But you do have a right to review the evidence that will be used against you during your trial.
- netizen-936824 5y agoI think the general point still stands. The evidence was no secured either.
- KittenInABox 5y agoProsecution should be held in contempt of court if they fail to keep their own evidence securely, including the platforms and locations of storage. I think prosecutors should go to jail if they keep their evidence in a building covered in kerosene and then "whoops" the evidence has gone up in flames.