3 ms·
Nah, I get it fine, that’s why appeals exist. The judge in the defendant’s case already ruled on it and the obviously corrupt Sentator can appeal it further if
by mikeyouse 4y ago
Nah, I get it fine, that’s why appeals exist. The judge in the defendant’s case already ruled on it and the obviously corrupt Sentator can appeal it further if he feels he’s still been wronged. The justice system is fault tolerant and unfortunately this isn’t actually even a novel problem. You’re partially right, the judge weighs exactly that question “If this evidence were exculpatory, how would it impact the case.” and the judge found that the destroyed evidence lacked exculpatory value due to the overwhelming amount of other evidence against him.
- O__________O 4y agoWhich circles back to my original question, “assuming there was a preponderance of evidence, why would someone only destroy a fraction of it knowing that doing so would be irrelevant” - it makes no sense. Also, at that point I had not read the ruling you referred to, which oddly clearly states the erased data was just a copy loaded to Dropbox; meaning the data exist in at least three places, one one of which is the one in question, that is the disk on the laptop that was erased by the agent. No explanation is provided of what happened to the other copies. See “parties learned that a paralegal in Mr. Wilkinson's office named Karri Layton had uploaded the Neal recordings to a Dropbox account” here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-woods-260 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-woods-260