3 ms·

Its more like "Side A has illegally destroyed evidence that would have helped Side B's case, therefore we can't be certain Side B has actually done the things S

• themitigating 4y ago
  you need a certain amount of evidence to prove a crime. What does destroyed evidence have to do with whether that crime has been committed or if there is sufficient evidence to prove it?
  • salawat 4y ago
    It's exculpatory evidence. I.e. Evidence that could exonerate the defendant and weaken or outright dismantle the State's case. This isn't evidence that makes the defendant guiltier...but could be a factual finding that blows open the case meaning ya got the wrong guy, or the guy is still guilty, but not the end of the story. If it were evaluated and available to the Court, a more nuanced discussion could be had of the ramifications on the case. The State destroyed it, however, introducing adverse inference. This usually comes coupled, when a defendant does it, of causing the Prosecution to become entitled to having the Judge instruct the Jury to see the destroyed evidence in the worst light possible. Seeing as it was the State doing it, that would imply the Court must take that evidence as nothing less than completely undermining the State's original case. If you aren't willing to throw a guilty man on the streets to make damn sure your LE edifice doesn't put the innocent in harm's way, wtf are you doing as a Court System? It sure isn't justice.