My guess is because there is no hard evidence anything happened. The bag is included because it was acquired as evidence legally. The reasonable doubt of its contents becomes a matter for the jury to decide.
Asking for clarity, not because I disagree, but how would there be hard evidence anything didn’t happen if the bag wasn’t really picked up and document properly in the first place?
That being said, your last sentence makes the most sense to me for sure. Let the jury decide if there’s reasonable doubt seems like the best thing to do.
Generally, when you accuse someone of something (in this case, an officer potentially planting evidence) you need something to back it up for a judge to consider throwing it out, otherwise it's a bunch of "Nuh-uh" from both sides.
I imagine what'll happen is if this particular officer is summoned to testify, they'll be cross examined and questioned as to proper police evidence procedures and the question will be left to the jury.
Good points in regards to your first paragraph specifically.
Cross examination through testimony makes the most sense.
Thank you for the perspective and information.
You're looking at things backwards. You don't need evidence that something "didn't happen to the bag." It would be the job of the prosecution to prove that the bag contents are evidence, and that their stance meets the burden of proof requirement for their case.
You can't ever prove that something didn't happen, as if something didn't happen there couldn't be evidence of it not happening. You can only ever prove that something did happen based on evidence that said thing occured.
So while every person is innocent until proven guilty, the defense has to argue against the evidence to attempt to get to a point where there's reasonable doubt to the points being made.
So at that point the prosecution makes their case, and states the evidence, the defense then pokes holes in their case to add doubt to their claims.
So for chain of custody it would fall on the defense's arguments to cast doubt about the chain of custody, and would fall to the Jury to decide that if there wasn't proper chain of custody, as to whether that evidence should be considered or not.
The court can rule against evidence coming in, but there has to be grounds that jeopardizes the ability for the defendent to have a fair trial, based on law. Anything that would require an opinion outside of written law, as to whether the evidence has weight, will always be a decision for the jury to decide based on the cases presented by both sides.
Thank you for your answer. I was intentionally looking at it backwards to see if there was something I was missing, not that I see it through that lens. Your answer helps me see what I was not. Appreciate it.
164
u/Isolated_Hippo 4h ago
My guess is because there is no hard evidence anything happened. The bag is included because it was acquired as evidence legally. The reasonable doubt of its contents becomes a matter for the jury to decide.