Fraud works. Perjury even. This is lying to judges. Pure and simple. Every case should be thrown out or discredited and overturned. It's the only way to restore true balance to justice and let it be known that pure lying will not be tolerated, from anyone, ever.
Edit: it's the same as planting evidence. I've been trying to differentiate it in my head, and you can point to actual guilt, but procedurally (and in the name of justice) it's the same to me.
Judges do throwout illegally obtained evidence, the problem with this is, that the judge can't tell if it was illegally gained or not.
> The spoliation of evidence is the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
And an illegitimate evidence chain is called "fruit of the poisonous tree."
That said, the proof of a "poisonous tree" is itself difficult/impossible to obtain through legal means. Generally the message they send to anyone attempting to reveal the illicit nature of the evidence is told "even if you try, your proof will guaranteed to be inadmissible."
Edit: thanks for the definitions, nonetheless!
Furthermore, there are protective policies where public prosecutors are given the discretion to exclude evidence gained from "confidential" sources (eg: undercover cops) and that revealing such evidence to the public would negatively impact current/future investigations. Such evidence can be revealed privately to the necessary parties (eg: judges), but I'm not familiar with these procedures.
Or at least that's my interpretation of the comment in question. I have no idea how true it is.
The only way evidence of a coverup could be illegally obtained would be if the defense somehow placed an illegal wiretap on the police department or prosecutor's office, which seems really implausible.
They get information which leads to an arrest. Once they get the arrest they construct an alternative explanation for how they got the original information in order to avoid scrutiny about how they originally got the information (such as the Sting Ray).
The information they got from the Sting Ray is, ostensibly, true/actionable but the Sting Ray itself is questionably un-constitutional. So instead they create a fake evidence trail leading to the information they got from the Sting Ray in order to explain any and all information actually obtained from a Sting Ray.
Like someone else said, it's kind of like evidence laundering. "How we got this is bad, so instead let's create a fictitious string of events to add legitimacy to it."
It's time to realize that our own law enforcement is a greater threat to us than terrorists abroad. This behavior needs to be made illegal.
Yes, we "all" have known that parallel reconstruction has been going on. Except for the skeptics who require hard evidence of its occurrence. Well, now we have evidence.
This isn't about the practice being surprising. It's about the practice finally being documented.
"Why is this surprising?" There are reasons to discuss it other than surprise. Better evidence may allow for official reactions, inquiries, or prosecutions.
"Is anyone so naive that..." Yes, we weep for our lost innocence. Now we see that your jaded nihilism was justified all along. Forgive us.
"Of course, nobody really cares..." Back that up with stats. Are you sure nobody cares? Are you sure that is a permanent state of affairs? If you're also asking "Why is anyone surprised?" that's acknowledging we've got a delta in collective interest here, so the complaint is self-canceling. And how many people's attention is needed? A very vocal and effective 5% of the population can get a lot done.
"Of course, nobody can do anything..." Despite various pronouncements of the end of history, things continue to happen.
See a problem here?
What does it even mean to make law enforcement behavior "illegal"? Who would enforce it? Obviously those in charge are either happy with it as it is or feel powerless to stop it.
> the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
If you disagree, feel free to present reasoning or evidence: mere assertion won't help.
A precedent goes against what you wish to conclude? Distinguish why it doesn't apply in these circumstances, depending on how much you fear being overruled. Keep doing that, until it swallows the rule, if you wish the rule to go away. In things like evidentiary rulings, you can always distinguish the circumstances, until you go from "a man's home is his castle" to "I smelt marijuana & kicked the door down".
In practical & long terms, for issues of government power in particular, predicting how a court will rule is not best done by looking at plausibly applicable precedent.
Do you have any particular evidence that courts frequently ignore precedent in favor of their own wishes?
As I said, it is usually the case that precedent is distinguished into oblivion rather than explicitly overruled. Only very limited technical issues are "settled law".
Is this the same case? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/10r51h1ls/california-southe...
I'm not versed well enough in these things to accurately describe, but it looks like there was a motion for discovery, and the case was effectively dropped a week later?
Edit: I guess in order to make the analogy more accurate, I would have to specify that the undercover agent knows they did something illegal that would make their own testimony inadmissible as evidence, and this is the motivation for finding the bystander.
See David Simon's "Audacity of Hope" speech. One version of it at UC Berkeley on YouTube.
(Simon's a great writer and has wonderful ideas to express. He's an abysmal public speaker. I actually edited out all the "ums" and "ers" from that, and cut it by 10 minutes (70 minute preso).
Get used to it. Or fight it.
Not to mention the deception. In order to use parallel construction, the police need to make up a story about why they began investigating. By definition, parallel construction means that they will lie in court about this.
The courts really need to wake up, or they will continue to be impotent lackeys of the executive branch.
Like you can still have information so private that you can't build a parallel construction - right?
You will never have information that's so secret that you can't build a parallel construction, because you always create a parallel construction that gives the appearance of random chance. "Well, your honor, we decided to setup a traffic safety roadblock stopping every blue car, and when the defendants stopped they started acting suspicious, and then it just happened that a k9 unit that was returning from delivering coffee alerted on the car. At which I point I searched the car and found the evidence. Somedays, we just get lucky."
I'm saying if you have a private/secret meeting in your basement about how to overthrow the government there is no parallel construction you can make to intercept that. If you have secret files on your computer you can't have cops "accidentally" bump into them.
I'm really doubting "you will never have information that's so secret that you can't build a parallel construction"
> have secret files on your computer
Do any of the participants have any mobile phones on them? Are there any windows in the basement? What do you mean by "secret files"? Do you mean encrypted? How do you know it's not a compromised service/protocol?
I think you underestimate what present-day technology is capable of.
"Right place at the right time" implies it was an accident, and that is a lie. They're lying in court and that should be illegal.
What I think is naive is the idea that the only bad kind of coercion is from governments, as if there's no such thing as economic coercion, or psychological coercion. And further is naive that it is possible to totally get rid of it.