Shiff is a former US attorney-prosecutor.. if he would pull this crap with the President of the USA, think what this low life POS has done to poor ordinary citizens, just to get he convection rate up.
If I were a lawyer for one of Shiffs former “defendants” I appeal that conviction, based on his modus operandi
“think what this low life POS has done to poor ordinary citizens, just to get he convection rate up”
That’s what you’re seeing here. And these people have a lot more money to defend themselves then Joe Nobody.
This sneering, conceited little prick is pulling this s**t to see if he can get away with it.
Alcee Hastings wrote the rules? Might as well have been the Crips.
“Shiff is a former US attorney-prosecutor.. if he would pull this crap with the President of the USA, think what this low life POS has done to poor ordinary citizens, just to get he convection rate up.
If I were a lawyer for one of Shiffs former “defendants” I appeal that conviction, based on his modus operandi.”
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