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?
Liberals: It’s the victim of a crime who is responsible.
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.
I would imagine the ruling doesn’t apply to judges’ homes :-/
Like hell!
WTF? Legal insanity. Why report a crime in those circumstances?
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!
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.
This is actually just re-affirming the rights of the accused under the law. Think of GZ and the little thugs cell phone data. An accused has the right to the evidence. All the evidence. And they are guaranteed to receive a full and impartial trial. Botching evidence, poorly catalogued evidence and hiding evidence from the defense and getting away with it are some prosecutors’ wet dreams.