3 ms·

The US system of evidence is so weird.

by boxed 2y ago

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Ya it's a bit of a meta-justice system, throwing out the case doesn't seem like an ideal outcome but it punishes the prosecutors for being sloppy. Sends the message, If you want to send someone to jail for 20 years, don't be sloppy.
- 542354234235 2y ago
  The case isn’t thrown out. The evidence obtained through an illegally obtained warrant is suppressed. They can still gather and use any other evidence to prove his guilt.
- Clubber 2y ago
  That will only work if they prosecute the detectives for falsifying information on a warrant application, which they won't. The really scary part is how many innocent people could have been jailed because of sloppiness that wasn't caught.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      I don't think police really care what happens after the arrest most of the time, unless it was someone they feel wronged them. I could be wrong. Point being, letting the guy get off, the police will just blame the lawyers and not themselves a lot of the time. You always hear, "they got off on a technicality," which means the police were sloppy and didn't do their job the right (constitutional) way, but it infers someone did something wrong in the courtroom and not the police.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  I think it’s more precise to say that the temporary judge ruled that this can’t go to trial when the police admit they used Clearview services. Would a human viewing the footage been more convincing to a retired judge?
phyzome 2y ago
It makes sense to me -- illegitimately gained evidence is inadmissible. What would you do differently, and why do you think it would work better?
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  Prosecute the detectives who broke the law.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    As a replacement for the existing system, that seems significantly worse for the victims of police misconduct. They’d have no recourse unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the officers responsible would have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about it.
    - boxed 2y ago
      In Sweden, all evidence is admissible. If you have a warrant for say drugs, and you accidentally find someone who is kidnapped in that house, you can still use that evidence to prosecute the kidnapper.
      - buildsjets 2y ago
        The same in the USA. But only if the original warrant for the drugs were obtained legally. If the original warrant was obtained illegally, all evidence obtained using that warrant is inadmissible.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        Sounds like a system that makes a lot of sense for a country with a higher level of police trust. As you can probably infer from the call for prosecuting the police upthread, there’s a lot of Americans who don’t particularly trust the police and don’t think that accidents are the common case. For what it’s worth, that specific scenario is admissible in the US as well under the plain view doctrine.

The US system of evidence is so weird.

by boxed 2y ago

The US system of evidence is so weird.

Ya it's a bit of a meta-justice system, throwing out the case doesn't seem like an ideal outcome but it punishes the prosecutors for being sloppy. Sends the message, If you want to send someone to jail for 20 years, don't be sloppy.

542354234235 2y ago
The case isn’t thrown out. The evidence obtained through an illegally obtained warrant is suppressed. They can still gather and use any other evidence to prove his guilt.
Clubber 2y ago
That will only work if they prosecute the detectives for falsifying information on a warrant application, which they won't. The really scary part is how many innocent people could have been jailed because of sloppiness that wasn't caught.
- philipov 2y ago
  Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    I don't think police really care what happens after the arrest most of the time, unless it was someone they feel wronged them. I could be wrong. Point being, letting the guy get off, the police will just blame the lawyers and not themselves a lot of the time. You always hear, "they got off on a technicality," which means the police were sloppy and didn't do their job the right (constitutional) way, but it infers someone did something wrong in the courtroom and not the police.
ttyprintk 2y ago
I think it’s more precise to say that the temporary judge ruled that this can’t go to trial when the police admit they used Clearview services. Would a human viewing the footage been more convincing to a retired judge?

phyzome 2y ago

It makes sense to me -- illegitimately gained evidence is inadmissible. What would you do differently, and why do you think it would work better?

jakelazaroff 2y ago
Prosecute the detectives who broke the law.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  As a replacement for the existing system, that seems significantly worse for the victims of police misconduct. They’d have no recourse unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the officers responsible would have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify about it.
  - boxed 2y ago
    In Sweden, all evidence is admissible. If you have a warrant for say drugs, and you accidentally find someone who is kidnapped in that house, you can still use that evidence to prosecute the kidnapper.
    - buildsjets 2y ago
      The same in the USA. But only if the original warrant for the drugs were obtained legally. If the original warrant was obtained illegally, all evidence obtained using that warrant is inadmissible.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      Sounds like a system that makes a lot of sense for a country with a higher level of police trust. As you can probably infer from the call for prosecuting the police upthread, there’s a lot of Americans who don’t particularly trust the police and don’t think that accidents are the common case. For what it’s worth, that specific scenario is admissible in the US as well under the plain view doctrine.