[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I appreciate your input, thank you.

“What’s needed is to allow defense attorneys to put questions of warrant legitimacy before trial-court juries. Inform the jury in trial court that unless the state proves that a warrant was obtained and served 100% legitimately, the jury should not regard any evidence gained by the warrant in any manner detrimental to the defense.”

To me, truth is truth. Warrants are a means to an end. I think juries should only need to focus on what is true and what isn’t true. Suppression of evidence due to technicalities is for another trial or lawsuit IF the suspect is not guilty. That cuts through the tangle. I could care less if a scumbag isn’t given “due process”. But then planted “evidence” would be the next big problem. That’s when I throw up my hands. Any ideas?

“To be sure, a lot of jurors might convict someone using evidence they really shouldn’t have considered, but a lot of jurors would, with the right defense arguments, quite properly refuse to go along with some of what the police would call “probable cause”.”

Probable cause could be verified by flipping on a head-mounted digital camera/sound recording system. Some towns are already testing that on their own. [Thank God.]

“Presently, when police seek a warrant there’s no way for the intended target to cross-examine them and uncover information that may show that their “probable cause” is a sham. For example, if police get a warrant based upon the fact that drug activity was observed in a house two months ago, but fail to disclose to the warrant judge that the person who occupied the property then was evicted and someone else moved in, a judge might not quash any evidence stemming from such a warrant, but a jury might be loath to accept it (if nothing else, because it would show such sloppy investigation by the officers involved that their conduct on the case would be untrustworthy).”

Interesting. Once again, the concern of planted “evidence”.

How many murder suspects were framed or falsely accused? A lot right? [Based on DNA testing.]

[supercat]

To me, truth is truth. Warrants are a means to an end. I think juries should only need to focus on what is true and what isn’t true. Suppression of evidence due to technicalities is for another trial or lawsuit IF the suspect is not guilty.

I have some qualms with that argument:

1. Most police-gathered evidence carries with it a strong presumption that everyone involved in the chain of command is trustworthy. If evidence was not gathered legitimately, on what basis should it be granted such an imprimatur?
2. If any government agent acted illegitimately in obtaining evidence, is there any reason why such an agent should be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt not to have tampered with it (or faked it altogether)?
3. I believe strongly that proper justice must be 'prioritized'; if two people are involved in a criminal enterprise, one much more so than the other, one might determine that the prosecution of both, neither, or only the worse one would be just, but a decision to prosecute only the lesser criminal would be unjust. For a juror to convict someone, I would posit that the juror should believe the person would pose a bigger danger to society than the people involved in his prosecution. Normally, that should be the case, but in cases involving police or prosecutorial misconduct, it may well not be.
4. Police who use illegitimate means to score convictions get told "don't do that again (wink wink)". Police who get cases thrown out because of illegitimate means they try to use to score convictions get told "don't do that again (or you'll be seeking work elsewhere)". If police departments showed a real interest in prosecuting police who commit crimes, it might be reasonable to trust them not to condone illegal tactics. As it is, however, departments actively work to stifle any efforts to punish criminals in their ranks. The Exclusionary Rule may be crude, but it's the only way courts have to punish illegal actions by police.

Probable cause could be verified by flipping on a head-mounted digital camera/sound recording system.

More police cameras can help with some things, but a more fundamental issue is that judges and jurors are apt to have different requirements to consider something "probable cause". If a cop describes (or shows video of) action around a target dwelling which is only slightly suspicious, a judge might issue a warrant if he considers it possible that someone seeing such actions might believe a search would turn up evidence of a crime; a jury, however, might in some cases realize that the "suspicious" actions were really pretty ordinary, or that perhaps the cop who regarded them as suspicious was ignorant of some common practices.

Especially given the way prosecutors rig juries, I wouldn't want to rely upon jurors to be the only people scrutinizing evidence-gathering practices, but I think they would nonetheless in many cases pose an important check and balance. If nothing else, the fact that their conduct would be open to scrutiny by a jury would probably discourage some types of bad behavior.