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 ...
Like hell!
WTF? Legal insanity. Why report a crime in those circumstances?
Well said.
Unlike you, knarf, is a well respected long time poster here....who doesn't use a porn screen name.
Buzz off.
Hey FRiend, been a while. Ready for some BBQ?!
Yeah, it’s 12 degrees here with a forecast of relentless snows. I think what I need now is a Luau on a tropical beach! Bury the whole pig in a pit full of coals, sit back with a fruity drink and let time do its work. lol
I'm so ready, say when an where!
I wish I could. I’m sure Vegas would be plenty warm enough for me but I’ll be breaking ice here for the foreseeable future.
These supposed “judges” ever heard of a “chain of custody” of evidence?
Evidence “retrieved” by the defense would, by definition be tainted unless it was gathered together with law enforcement as a neutral witness. This decision does not provide for that- and is ridiculous.
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.
If you've been accused, and you demonstrate that important evidence may be found, it is proper to be allowed to investigate a crime scene, for both sides. Denying access to a crime scene is grotesquely unfair to a defendant, and would be abused and expanded by the Left in these upcoming Difficult Times.
Appeals court judges smoking something .... probably!
We had a local Hoosier who fed his wife to the hogs. Everybody involved knew he was guilty, but lack of evidence kept him from being charged.
Myself...I know of other ways that would keep all of the CSI shows busy for years and never find a shred
Probably not, but the rule of law is soooo 8 years ago.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
I’ll take that as a “yes,” thank you. ;)
What B S.
Colorado, California, New York, North Carolina and Massachusetts are hardly
what you would call states that can ,
have or ever will be seen as setting a
good example. If anything it just proves it’s
stupid and most likely, unconstitutional.
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.