Don’t report crime. Just call for a body pickup.
Or not...
Posted on 02/27/2015 3:42:25 PM PST by Citizen Zed
An appeals court added Colorado to the list of states that can allow criminal suspects to search victims' homes to bolster their defense - a move that raised concerns among prosecutors and victims' advocates.
The Colorado judges wrote in their Thursday decision that courts in California, New York, North Carolina and Massachusetts have determined a defendant's right to a fair trial sometimes outweighs privacy interests.
Victims' rights advocates strongly objected to the decision.
"It's going to have a re-victimizing effect in a criminal justice process that is already very re-victimizing," said Boulder-based victims' rights attorney John Clune.
People could be less likely to report crime if they see judges allowing suspects to search private homes, he added.
The Colorado judges made their decision after a man convicted of sexually assaulting his cousins argued that a judge was wrong to deny him access to the crime scene in his grandmother's basement.
The appeals court agreed the man had not proven a need to search her home, in part because he already had photos of the crime scene, but said judges can grant such access.
Courts have allowed defendants to get confidential records and have victims ordered to undergo psychological evaluations, and defense attorneys regularly seek evidence from cellphones, computers and other property. The appeals court said it found no ruling or state law specifically addressing access to a private home.
Defendants would have to show that the search would yield evidence that is "relevant, material and necessary to his defense," according to the ruling. Courts would have to balance that justification against the resident's privacy interests.
It's sometimes necessary to return to a crime scene in cases where the defense feels investigators were not thorough, didn't take enough photographs or didn't search the right places, Denver defense attorney Karen Steinhauser said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfmj.com ...
I never heard of such a law. I can see how a stalker or just some naturally mean person would exploit this law, creating a costly, never ending publicized hassle for the victim. Having all facts known and assumptions made long before any trial.
>>People could be less likely to report crime if they see judges allowing suspects to search private homes, he added.
Don’t report crime. Just call for a body pickup.
If the victim kills the intruder, can the dead guy’s next of kin search the home? Sounds like another incentive to kill the intruder.
This is the Colorado Court of Appeals. They have been reversed fairly often recently by the Supreme Court. This is probably not over.
Is this some sort of sick joke?
The word "victim" construes what might be a good idea
If a man is innocent of a crime and the search of his "victim's" home (rape charge, f'rinstance) could prove there were 11 men dripping seman all over her living room last night ... it might not be a bad law
Don't know HOW to think about it
'Course ... ANY law can be misused ... so ....
Don’t report crime. Just call for a body pickup.
Or not...
Liberals: It’s the victim of a crime who is responsible.
Just feed some hogs. They eat everything.
What a g-d joke. Treating the criminal as the victim. Eff that.
All I can say is courts have now given a reason to homeowners to aim very carefully.
this SOUNDS like a Bad Parody!
And on first thought, it is a hard law to accept.
But after thinking it over, it is a fair law for the simple reason that there are many false accusations.
The Duke Lacrosse team, for instance.
Long before that, there was a woman in Randolph County, NC, who not only accused a fellow of raping her, but got him convicted.
He was a pillar in his church, highly thought of, but got scared of prison and fled.
Eventually they found him brought him back.
This case made Jerry Bledsoe famous. He and some private detective smelled a rat and proved that the woman was nuts, had even fired shots at her own house and did many other things that I can not remember.
This all happened maybe 60 years ago.
Bledsoe got him out of prison, but he had served many years.
So recognizing the fact that some prosecuting attorneys are as evil as the criminals, I think it is a fair law. I have no idea how the law is written, but it should contain a clause that no evidence or information of any kind that is not directly related to the crime under investigtion can be disclosed to the public or used in any way by the prosecution.
I hope that by “defendant” they mean his legal team only.
Alleged criminal — remember that the accused is supposed to have the presumption of innocence, and that the legal system is essentially geared to make EVERYONE into a criminal... as such, I can’t quite get so upset about this. (Aside from the presumption of innocence, confronting one’s accuser is under assault in the legal system.)
and the next of kin...
I would imagine the ruling doesn’t apply to judges’ homes :-/
Is that legal?
I thought you wanted Lime for that, un-hydrated calcium hydroxide. That’s what makes the bones go away...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.