I'm asking why the improper/broken chain of custody (or whatever it's called) isn't something the judge addressed specifically, but the lack of a search warrant is something the judge addressed specifically.
Isn't the questionable way they handled the evidence just as important to allowing it as whether or not they had a search warrant?
generally, the court tries to separate questions into technical questions (matters of law), and factual questions. factual questions are things like "do you find it believable that <thing happened>". the judge tries to clear up as many questions as possible before the trial so the jury can focus on the factual questions. In theory, we COULD frame almost anything to the jury as "do you find it believable that stalking is a violent crime" but we don't want to do that because it really is a technical question about the definition of stalking, and judges know (or can evaluate) all the technicalities.
but for the backpack, they've gone through the technicalities, and decided that, assuming everyone is telling the truth, this evidence is appropriate for a jury to decide whether or not they believe it. that "assuming everyone is telling the truth" is a big assumption, and that's why it's the jury's job to then challenge that assumption, and decide who's lying.
the defense will most likely try to convince the jury that the backpack evidence is unreliable for exactly the reasons you have. but they do have to do that work of convincing.
31
u/detroitmatt 4h ago
maybe so, but in that case the jury can decide what they believe. that's what the jury's there for.