2 ms·
On Reddit I've seen cases where the person was making violent threats and someone will always reply with this canard. "Yes your honor, that's me saying 'I'm go
by willcipriano 4y ago
On Reddit I've seen cases where the person was making violent threats and someone will always reply with this canard.
"Yes your honor, that's me saying 'I'm going to fing kill you', but it was recorded without my consent!" probably isn't a smart move, legally speaking.
- GuB-42 4y agoI don't know, there is something about illegally acquired evidence, and that's the kind of technicalities attorneys love to use if it can benefit their clients.
- toast0 4y agoThat's really silly when if you need two/all party consent for the evidence to be admissible; you can object that there was no consent without acknowledging who was speaking. And the evidence can be objected to without being listened to by the judge/jury. Surprise evidence is strongly discouraged, and there's a procedure to enter into evidence before it's shown or heard. On the other hand, illegally obtained evidence is not always prohibited from trial. It's most likely to be prohibited if it's a criminal trial and the evidence was illegally obtained by law enforcement or the government generally. An illegal recording by a non-governmental party, not acting on instructions by a governmental party has nuance and may be allowed.