[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.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I think compartmentalization should be in order. Failure to do one’s job properly should obviously lead to dismissal — possibly fines and even jail time. That can be the deterent. But evidence is evidence, and news is news.

Doesn’t it bother you that a potential juror is kicked off the tiral because she or he is too WELL informed? TOO intelligent?

And just because a deputy is in prison for breaking and entering to gather key evidence, why can’t his kamakazi act at least be considered as evidence?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You sound more knowedgeable than me about actual trials. I’m no lawyer,or do I study trials closely. So maybe I’m out of my league here. We are talking about one of the best legal systems in the world despite its flaws.

[Police who use illegitimate means to score convictions get told “don’t do that again (wink wink)”.]

If that is the case, why let judges choose who the “winners” and “losers” are? If judges block improperly gathered evidence, it simply creates an illusion of professionalism. Perhaps it is time for society to broaden its perspective. If a defense attorney is motivated to discrediting improper evidence rather than being motivated to simply have it buried, that brings juries and society closer to the truth. Let the prosecutor be the one to decide what evidence harms the case.

“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.”

That’s good too. If Barney Fife is proven to be overly zealous, I’m thrilled.