Kevin wrote: > >Obviously we should operate using "the end does not justify the means" and >they are just showing that all hard evidence that may have been found from >an illegal source should be thrown out. It's good actually that judges are >setting clear rules, it forces the police to do the exactly right things to >make sure a person is convicted. But it's bad when a conviction is thrown >out because some lab worker ten years ago wasn't following the rules set in >place this year. > But I don't get why that discounts other REAL incontrovertible evidence. OK, if a lab tech can't prove chain of custody or whatever, then the lab results shouldn't be relied on, but if the investigators, in following that up uncover hard evidence, how can that be ignored? That doesn't make any sense, or help anyone. The authorities doing the follow-up work haven't failed their evidentiary requirements (just like in the West Wing example, the US hadn't done anything wrong in all their investigations). What if it is shown that there is a reasonable expectation that the hard evidence would have been found anyway, but the tainted evidence made it discovered sooner? Is the incontrovertible evidence still dismissed?
Cheers Russell C.
