News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What does this mean?
The US has a legal concept called fruit of the poisoned tree. Basically, if evidence was obtained by cops illegally, it can’t be used against a defendant. Essentially, the prosecution can’t use fruit that they found from a poisoned tree, because the fruit is considered tainted. For instance, let’s say cops illegally search you, and find weed. If your defense lawyer can prove that the search was illegal, the evidence (your weed) gets excluded from the trial.
There are a few exceptions, like cops being able to use evidence from someone who stole it. For instance, if someone steals a laptop and then finds CSAM on it, the laptop can still be used against the person it was stolen from. Because the initial theft was illegal, but the cops weren’t the ones who stole it; They legally obtained it from the thief who reported the CSAM and turned the laptop over. But as a general rule, if cops break the law to get evidence, the evidence is thrown out.
So if they prove that Luigi was illegally searched, it potentially excludes all of the evidence they found on him, like his written manifesto and the ghost gun in his backpack.
But this trial is already a fucking sham, so I have no doubt that the courts will turn case law on its head to rule the search was legal, even if it was blatantly illegal. Cops have a lot of leeway in how they can justify a search, so the detectives can likely just say “we thought we smelled weed, so we initiated a search” to get the search ruled as legal.
I wish I could disagree with this analysis of the current state of our punishment system.
The others have already answered, but I'll leave you with this nice summary, and a link to the best source of law info for the commonfolk in america there is.
If the search was, in fact, improperly conducted, it then would be an illegal search and seizure. At that point all evidence obtained by the search is inadmissible in court. They may have just torpedoed their case just with the search alone.
The documentary is a whole other legal can of worms that I am in no way qualified to even begin to analyze.