First real counter punch.
Now this starts to get interesting.
If Schiff was an asst DA, he probable did some unconstitutional bs and tainted evidence to whack some innocent person.
Hopefully defense attorneys in his area will check for possible tainted evidence by Schiff and his personal thugs.
The Development of the Exclusionary Rule
For the more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still admissible during the defendant’s prosecution.
The U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in 1914, however, when it handed down its decision in Weeks v. United States. This case involved the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court effectively created the exclusionary rule. Then, in 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in Mapp v. Ohio.
Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule?
Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being introduced at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured in violation of a constitutional provision. The rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence.
If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the propriety of the trial court’s decision denying the motion to suppress on appeal.
If the defendant succeeds on appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial of the defendant because the trial court’s error wasn’t addressing the question of guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, obtaining a conviction in the second trial would be significantly more difficult if the evidence suppressed by the exclusionary rule is important to the prosecution.
Companion to the Exclusionary Rule: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
A legal concept that’s related to the exclusionary rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude from trial not only evidence that itself was seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution, but also any other evidence that is derived from an illegal search.
For example, suppose a defendant is arrested for kidnapping and later confesses to the crime. If a court subsequently declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, the confession will also be deemed tainted and ruled inadmissible at any prosecution of the defendant on the kidnapping charge.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.
Oh yeah... Here we go. This is what REAL Trump supporters need to do. Stick their necks out and get this stuff in court with legal standing. And those who do like this deserve thousands of dollars in support from EVERYONE to make it succeed. Any excuse. any reason, Get it in court ASAP and stand behind it.
Oh wait... I forgot, have a hunting trip planned next week to get ready for so I don’t have time. Hunting fun is much more important...
In the meantime Ca, NY, and Washington state citizens are dumping millions into the current Colorado issues. This is why they win one important target at a time and we lose...
drag this out and make pencil neck go broke in legal fees
