In a hearing to suppress the evidence, why is the judge akin to the evidence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blu
  • Start date Start date
B

Blu

Guest
when the defense is ...? ... questioning the means by which it was obtained?
We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The above is an example of how the end justifies the means. I detect a conflict.
How does the knowledge of what the evidence is not influence a judges decision?
The judge doesn't have to know what the evidence is. It's all about a sequence of events. The defense is questioning the legality of what transpired prior to the discovery.
 
He's not. It is just necessary that he make sure the law was followed in obtaining the evidence. Other wise the time and cost of the trial could be wasted as unconstitutional
 
Back
Top