Judge cautions prosecutors in healthcare exec murder trial to refrain from public comments
Judge cautions prosecutors in healthcare exec murder trial to refrain from public comments
I think it’s a very strong case in terms of him doing it. I think it’s going to be hard for them to argue that it wasn’t him or that it was unintentional,” Rahmani said. But, in the public perception, “he is a very sympathetic accused murderer”.
They don't have to prove he didn't do it...
The government has to prove he did. And they have to provide evidence and disclose how they got that evidence.
With the pressure on finding someone, it's likely they didn't obtain all the evidence legally. If they used illegal means to find him, Im pretty sure that taints any evidence found on him.
The article makes it sound like jury nullification is his only shot, but there's a very good chance the prosecution can't use a lot of their evidence unless they make up a very good story about how they might have legally got it.
If they used illegal means to find him, Im pretty sure that taints any evidence found on him.
Possibly. It's called The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. If the police obtained evidence illegally, or derived evidence from other evidence that was illegally obtained, it can be ruled inadmissible by the judge. There are exceptions shown in the link. One of the big exceptions is the first listed. If it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity it can be allowed.
Police are aware of the risks of tainted evidence so they will sometimes cover for it with a parallel construction investigation.
Parallel construction occurs when the federal government learns of criminal activity through one source but then gives the information to federal law enforcement agencies to “reconstruct” the criminal investigation so that the source of that second investigation differs from the original source.
So, let's say the police arrest a suspect and find compelling evidence against the suspect at the location. That evidence might be suppressed if it turns out that, for example, the police found out where the suspect was going to be via an illegal wire tap. If it weren't for the illegally obtained location information, the police would not have obtained that other evidence. Rather than admitting in court that this is how they found the suspect, one of the investigators might call in, or arrange for someone else to call in an anonymous tip about the suspect's location to other investigators that don't know about the illegal wire tap. The police then exclude the real origin of the knowledge of the suspects location from court filings.
Illegal, very possibly. Likely, also very possible.
I wonder what sort of illegal methods of search they could be concealing? A system capable of finding someone under those circumstances would need to have vast resources available to it and we would likely be aware of its existence through whistleblower revelations if not directly. However, since we don't know of anything like that I find this theory to be (N)ot (S)pecifically (A)chievable.
The government has to prove he did. And they have to provide evidence and disclose how they got that evidence.
Yep.
With the pressure on finding someone, it's likely they didn't obtain all the evidence legally.
Good thing the same standard doesn't apply to you.