Excluding Evidence

[Hobbit]

It's the other way around. The Radical Fascist Right has, for the past three decades, been trying to install a totalitarian police state in place of our fair "innocent until proven guilty" justice system.

acludem

Just where the hell did you get that idea? For a second there, I was admiring the maturity of your response, though I did disagree, then you post this. You might as well have just told me that if evidence wasn't excluded, Bush would break down your door in the middle of the night and drag you off to a gulag.

If what you're saying is true, how do you explain so many innocent people going to jail who were later freed by the Innocence Project?

The Innocence Project has nothing to do with the exclusion of evidence. If it did, then it would be another hippy organization that places all of our lives in danger by releasing dangerous criminals onto the streets through some twisted sense of fair play. It is an organization that seeks to free innocent convicts through the introduction of new evidence via techniques unavailable at the time of the original trial.

 

[jillian]

Prior to the 1950s, no evidence was excluded from courts unless it was prejudicial or had been proven to be false or altered in some way.

And there were a couple of words left out of the Pledge of Allegience prior to the 1950's and the McCarthy era, but I don't see anyone campaigning to get them removed (including me, btw).

As to your query about how criminals can go free because of a "technicality", a basic premise which has always been honored in our justice system, for all its flaws, is that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for even one innocent person to be imprisoned.

 

[Mr. P]

This is getting boring. Who is excluding “LEGALLY” obtained admissible evidence?:bangheads

 

[Hobbit]

And there were a couple of words left out of the Pledge of Allegience prior to the 1950's and the McCarthy era, but I don't see anyone campaigning to get them removed (including me, btw).

As to your query about how criminals can go free because of a "technicality", a basic premise which has always been honored in our justice system, for all its flaws, is that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for even one innocent person to be imprisoned.

How does excluding evidence keep anybody innocent from going to jail.

And whenever enough evidence is excluded that an obviously guilty person goes free, somebody dies. I don't see anybody keeling over every time somebody says 'under God.' The primary reason I oppose its removal is because the reason proposed for its removal would set a bad precedent.

This is getting boring. Who is excluding “LEGALLY” obtained admissible evidence?

You seem to be missing the point. I don't think evidence should EVER be excluded, no matter how it was obtained, unless there is reason to doubt its authenticity. If it is obtained illegally, those responsible should be duly punished, nothing more.

 

[acludem]

Would you support telling the jury that the evidence they are seeing was obtained illegally and in violation of the Constitutional rights of the defendant?

As for my earlier comment about the right, the John Ashcrofts of the world would love to turn this into a police state based upon Christian morals, what's scary is that they have a guy in the White House and some Supreme Court justices who agree with them.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Would you support telling the jury that the evidence they are seeing was obtained illegally and in violation of the Constitutional rights of the defendant?

This sounds reasonable. Personally, think a jury could easily conclude that a multiple murderer's right against unlawful search is outweighed by their own rights to not be murdered.

As for my earlier comment about the right, the John Ashcrofts of the world would love to turn this into a police state based upon Christian morals, what's scary is that they have a guy in the White House and some Supreme Court justices who agree with them.

You're a nutcase. Nobody wants a theocracy, yet that's all you dems cry as soon as somebody suggests that an unborn baby just might have feelings or that schools shouldn't be required to teach a flimsy, unsupported hypothesis concerning our origins, no matter how much scientific evidence backs it up.

 

[Mr. P]

How does excluding evidence keep anybody innocent from going to jail.

And whenever enough evidence is excluded that an obviously guilty person goes free, somebody dies. I don't see anybody keeling over every time somebody says 'under God.' The primary reason I oppose its removal is because the reason proposed for its removal would set a bad precedent.



You seem to be missing the point. I don't think evidence should EVER be excluded, no matter how it was obtained, unless there is reason to doubt its authenticity. If it is obtained illegally, those responsible should be duly punished, nothing more.

No, I think you are missing the point. Bubba our local cop is trusted. We went to school with him, he’s fun at parties, give ya the shirt off his back an stuff, he’s a good ole boy. One day Bubba framed someone with EVIDENCE. We turn our head cuz

I don't think evidence should EVER be excluded, no matter how it was obtained, unless there is reason to doubt its authenticity.

We all love Bubba, no doubt here.

Ya see why we have procedure?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Would you support telling the jury that the evidence they are seeing was obtained illegally and in violation of the Constitutional rights of the defendant?

As for my earlier comment about the right, the John Ashcrofts of the world would love to turn this into a police state based upon Christian morals, what's scary is that they have a guy in the White House and some Supreme Court justices who agree with them.

acludem

Sure I would support telling the jury that the evidence obtained against a murdering bastard was obtained illegally and in violation of his Constitutional rights. Then I would support telling them to go right on and convict the murdering bastard - based on that evidence - for violating his VICTIM'S Constitutional rights.

I would also tell the jury that they can do another trial to convict the person who committed the violation against the murdering bastard's Constitutional rights.

The TRUTH is the TRUTH is the TRUTH. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I see no reason to dismiss the TRUTH on "technicalities". Even when TRUTH is staring them in the face, liberals think the TRUTH should be dismissed - that's part and parcel of the liberal lunacy.

Your last comment about Ashcroft and Christians attempting to make us a "police state" tips your hat as to your radical left leanings. Liberals and the radical left will do anything to attack Christianity and the moral bedrock upon which America sits and which is the source of our success as a free nation. Christian morality is their worst enemy.

 

[Gunny]

It's the other way around. The Radical Fascist Right has, for the past three decades, been trying to install a totalitarian police state in place of our fair "innocent until proven guilty" justice system.

acludem

Our system is "fair and innocent until proven guilty" only on paper. In reality, you get just as much justice as you can afford.

And it doesn't matter WHO is president, since the judiciary answers to no one. Your accusation is crap.

 

[Hobbit]

No, I think you are missing the point. Bubba our local cop is trusted. We went to school with him, he’s fun at parties, give ya the shirt off his back an stuff, he’s a good ole boy. One day Bubba framed someone with EVIDENCE. We turn our head cuz
We all love Bubba, no doubt here.

Ya see why we have procedure?

This would be a case of doubting its authenticity, and if the judge allowed iffy evidence into trial because Bubba is well liked, then the same trial judge would never exclude illegally obtained evidence from Bubba, either. After all, we like Bubba. If that's enough to allow false evidence at trial, it's more than enough to let illegally obtained evidence at trial.

If the cops bust down somebody's door with no warrant and find a dozen dead bodies in the guy's basement along with enough evidence to prove he killed them, the cops should go to jail for breaking and entering. However, the guy should also go to jail, and probably get executed, for killing those dozen people. It doesn't help anybody to exclude all that evidence and let a serial killer go free.

 

[Mr. P]

This would be a case of doubting its authenticity, and if the judge allowed iffy evidence into trial because Bubba is well liked, then the same trial judge would never exclude illegally obtained evidence from Bubba, either. After all, we like Bubba. If that's enough to allow false evidence at trial, it's more than enough to let illegally obtained evidence at trial.

If the cops bust down somebody's door with no warrant and find a dozen dead bodies in the guy's basement along with enough evidence to prove he killed them, the cops should go to jail for breaking and entering. However, the guy should also go to jail, and probably get executed, for killing those dozen people. It doesn't help anybody to exclude all that evidence and let a serial killer go free.

Post #!

Is it just me, or is the idea of excluding illegally obtained evidence the dumbest thing our justice department has thought up since dumping a confession because the suspect claims he didn't know about his right against self-incrimination (interestingly, you do have a right to incriminate yourself just as much as you have a right not to, an idea lost on so many judges). So, let's get this straight. A guy murders a 12-year old child. The cops think they have a good lead, so they go to question the suspect. They see a gun in his apartment that matches the gun in the case, so they grab it. Ballistics comes back and says it is, in fact, the gun that killed the poor victim and has the suspect's fingerprints all over it, and nobody else's. The police get a search warrant and search his house. They find some of the victim's belongings, some of the rope used to tie up the victim, blood evidence from the victim on the suspect's clothes, and a crystal-clear video of the suspect killing the victim. Presented with this overwhelming evidence, the suspect signs a full confession and leads the cops straight to the victim's body.

So, that’s what I’m focusing on. You kinda blew yourself outta the water. Having a gun is in your home is not illegal. (there are exceptions).

The police without a warrant would not take said gun, just because it was one like 10,000 of the same model.
If they did it’s not ruled exclusionary evidece, it’s ruled illegal/inadmissible far as I know. Which pretty much kills the rest of the post?

Now, if the police see something illegal on a visit without a warrant, they can grab it. If however, it's only suspect they can/must get a warrant and go back. No problem with that.

 

[Hobbit]

Post #!


So, that’s what I’m focusing on. You kinda blew yourself outta the water. Having a gun is in your home is not illegal. (there are exceptions).

The police without a warrant would not take said gun, just because it was one like 10,000 of the same model.
If they did it’s not ruled exclusionary evidece, it’s ruled illegal/inadmissible far as I know. Which pretty much kills the rest of the post?

Now, if the police see something illegal on a visit without a warrant, they can grab it. If however, it's only suspect they can/must get a warrant and go back. No problem with that.

Not 'exclusionary,' excluded. They shouldn't have taken the gun. That was wrong. They should be punished. However, in addition to that, the court system wouldn't allow that gun at trial, nor any evidence obtained resulting from that gun. If that one gun led them to everything they have, the killer walks right out without so much as a fine for having an unregistered gun (if, indeed, it's not registered). What good does this do?

 

[Diuretic]

This case hasn't destroyed the exclusionary rule (which by the way was established in a civil and not a criminal case). It fine tunes in it that it gives the court bit more room to move in terms of ability to admit or exclude evidence.

In this instance the evidence was allowed in, in another case it might not be allowed in. Keeps the cops on their toes - no point in breaching the law to get admissible evidence if that admissible evidence is later ruled inadmissible, bit of a waste of time and effort really.

 

[Hobbit]

This case hasn't destroyed the exclusionary rule (which by the way was established in a civil and not a criminal case). It fine tunes in it that it gives the court bit more room to move in terms of ability to admit or exclude evidence.

In this instance the evidence was allowed in, in another case it might not be allowed in. Keeps the cops on their toes - no point in breaching the law to get admissible evidence if that admissible evidence is later ruled inadmissible, bit of a waste of time and effort really.

I get it. I really do. I know that excluding evidence is supposed to be a deterrant from performing illegal searches and to 'keep the cops on their toes,' but wouldn't disciplining the offending cops be just as effective a deterrant without the added side effect of people being needlessly killed because a known murderer was let out on the streets due to lack of 'kosher' evidence?

 

[acludem]

It's not about discipline for the cops. It's about maintaing a fair system of justice that is run according the law and the Constitution. Just because you don't like the fact that someone you think may have killed someone is let out because the cops failed to follow the law and the Constitution is not reason enough to jeopardize our entire system of justice, which is predicated on the simple maxim "innocent until proven guilty." Your proposal changes that to "innocent unless we think you are guilty in which case we can do whatever is necessary, legal or not, to try and prove it."

The exlusionary rule is a necessary safeguard to protect the Constutional right of the accused to a fair trial.

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's not about discipline for the cops. It's about maintaing a fair system of justice that is run according the law and the Constitution. Just because you don't like the fact that someone you think may have killed someone is let out because the cops failed to follow the law and the Constitution is not reason enough to jeopardize our entire system of justice, which is predicated on the simple maxim "innocent until proven guilty." Your proposal changes that to "innocent unless we think you are guilty in which case we can do whatever is necessary, legal or not, to try and prove it."

The exlusionary rule is a necessary safeguard to protect the Constutional right of the accused to a fair trial.

acludem

But setting aside iron clad concrete evidence because of some procedural mishap is definitely wrong. I know you aclu types are all about maintaining the letter of the law and perverting the spirit of the law, but please quit f'ing up our country with your lies.

 

[Hobbit]

It's not about discipline for the cops. It's about maintaing a fair system of justice that is run according the law and the Constitution. Just because you don't like the fact that someone you think may have killed someone is let out because the cops failed to follow the law and the Constitution is not reason enough to jeopardize our entire system of justice, which is predicated on the simple maxim "innocent until proven guilty." Your proposal changes that to "innocent unless we think you are guilty in which case we can do whatever is necessary, legal or not, to try and prove it."

The exlusionary rule is a necessary safeguard to protect the Constutional right of the accused to a fair trial.

acludem

These guys are innocent until proven guilty. However, many of them remain innocent until proven guilty multiple times because some judge threw out all the proof on the first few tries. If illegally obtained evidence is rock solid and authentic, how does admitting it violate presumption of innocence? You act like I'm saying we should give police carte blanche to go through anybody's homes if they're even suspect, but I'm not. I'm just saying that if they do that, they should be disciplined, but the public we're supposed to protect shouldn't be knowingly put back at risk because of a technical screw up.

If everything was corrected the way cops were, could you imagine our justice system? I mean, if a cop screws up, the judge throws out the evidence, and the guy kills again. If everything went down like that, it'd be like dragging some poor innocent guy off the streets and shooting him every time you failed to get in a report on time, or every time you showed up to work late. I mean, sure, it's an effective deterrant, but it really isn't fair to the dead guy, is it?

 

[Mr. P]

Guy, this is constitutional law. Stop the BS.

In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

 

[jillian]

Guy, this is constitutional law. Stop the BS.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

 

[Hobbit]

Guy, this is constitutional law. Stop the BS.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

First off, there's a difference between the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Constitutional Law is whatever the SCOTUS says it is. Abortion as a right and as a privacy issue is Constitutional Law, despite the fact that it is nowhere in the Constitution. The idea of exclusionary law is a fairly recent phenomenon, even within the limited scope of 230 years of U.S. history.

Second off, the neutrality of that Wikipedia article is in dispute, meaning that even Wikipedia, foolish believers in random public knowledge, don't even claim it's correct.