4 ms·
You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to
by smart_creature 5y ago
You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence.
- mannerheim 5y agoIf the exclusion of a single piece of evidence whose use in a trial was unconstitutional meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict, I would say there wasn't 'overwhelming evidence'.