However, with the Meese Amicus brief in SCOTUS regarding the appointment of Jack Smith in federal court, they are saying that if Smith's appointment was unconstitutional then everything is tainted fruit from the poisonous tree and the federal government would have to start over.
So why wouldn't the same apply to the prosecutor in Georgia if he was illegally appointed? I know it's about Georgia state law versus federal law, but isn't it still tainted if the prosecutor was illegally appointed in the first place and has the same lack of authority to call a grand jury and gather the evidence that is alleged with Smith?
-PJ
You make a great point about “the fruit of the poisonous tree” but to be honest I don’t think that’s enforced anymore these days. It seems to be a relic of the past, which I may be wrong about, but I have heard of countless examples of where it COULD have been enforced, but wasn’t. But I like that theory, and hope it bears out, just can’t think of a time it has been actually enforced anytime recently. Feel free to correct me, if I’m wrong, which I would appreciate. Thanks.