We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. Then the guy who wiped the drive was caught and charged. So no.
OP suggested the defendant be “automatically found not guilty.” Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.
> myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place
Nothing automatic. Also, this is why we have overlapping jurisdiction.
> law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is
LEO doesn’t get sent to standard prison, largely for safety reasons.
This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist.
> OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.
What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence?
Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?
This can always be claimed about anything, both ways.
> What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people
Look at the other evidence in appeal. (The defendant is appealing [1].)
[1] https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/sep/05/sentence-in-woods...
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18...
Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible.
If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.
A. The evidence was available through other means
B. It was not strong enough to exculpate the defendant
[1]
I agree that taking a strong inference against actions of prosecution when evidence is destroyed and unrecoverable. However, in this case, that's not what happened. Evidence was destroyed, but it was also preserved in other locations (it was uploaded on dropbox).
Our court system, while weak in many areas, isn't terrible in this sort of circumstance. It doesn't take hard lines because things are tricky.
This sort of problem with evidence is made to come out of the regular court proceedings. It's why discovery happens before we start a trial.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18...
That we’re ignoring all of the evidence that contributed to the case (and conviction, which was made after the wiped drive was discovered) outside one laptop?
If exculpatory evidence is destroyed, adverse inference demands the court infer that that evidence be viewed in the worst light for the destroyer of the evidence, which in this case is the State. It really doesn't matter what was on that disk at this point. Now that the chain of evidence has been destroyed, we have to assume it truly was exculpatory.
Just as we'd assume a defendant destroying evidence would indicate it was so damning the jury should assume it was just the thing the State needed to prove their case.
Good of the goose, good of the gander. No self-referential inconsistency.
In this case they’re an elected official who siphoned six figures out of state funds.
My experience in USA with appeals is they only look at technical process, mis-application of case law, or "clear error". Constitutional issue can be raised, and will lose basically every time.
Any balance or weighing of evidence is in the lower court.
What fruit do you discard after somebody destroys the data that tells what tree was poisoned?
In the US they do. Look at Derek Chauvin. He got assaulted on day one.
Creating a situation where bribing a law enforcement officer to claim to have destroyed evidence gets you out of a criminal charge automatically seems like a pretty problematic idea.
Just recently there was a judge - was it judges? - found guilty of sending kids to prison based on kickbacks received from the prison. And that, pardon the cliche, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Human behavior is both predictable and yet often bizarre.
But is it just the tip of the iceberg? Or are these things highly publicized when they happen because they are rare?
I'm not a cynical, simply realistic. We don't know about a fraction of the shit that goes down.
This is beyond ridiculous:
(1) Someone in law enforcement that is in a position to meddle with the chain of evidence can already wipe incriminating evidence, which is already illegal. That would imply that the powerful already have a “get out of jail” card.
(2) There are a myriad of other places where corruption and bias can produce a “get out of jail” card, starting with who law enforcement chooses to investigate in the first place, and ending with who prosecutors decline to prosecute.
(3) Anyone in law enforcement is well-aware of just how horrific a place prison actually is, especially for someone previously in law-enforcement. Nobody is scrambling to wipe their debts to “take care of their family” while going to prison themselves.