Evidence in court

I’ve got a bit of a hypothetical for you guys:

So, let's say Person A sues Person B, and things end up heading to a court. During the proceedings, Person A hands over direct evidence of the crime—but here's the kicker: there’s a chance the evidence was planted (mind you, I'm just saying it *could* have been, nothing is set in stone here). Naturally, Person A swears up and down they didn't touch anything, while Person B is out there claiming it's all a setup. In terms of how a court actually operates, would that evidence even be admissible?

Sorry if someone already asked something similar.

That’s precisely why we have judges—to weigh the specifics of a case and decide whether certain evidence actually holds water or not...

Is there actually some kind of rule that says if there’s a real chance evidence was planted, you can't use it in court? Or am I just watching way too many legal dramas? 😁

Man, you've been watching way too many Hollywood movies... honestly, that’s just not how things work in the real world. You can't just convict someone—or let them walk free—based on one single thing, which is exactly why we have a formal legal process in place...

crimsonsailor7 said:Man, you've been watching way too many Hollywood movies... honestly, that’s just not how things work in the real world. You can't just convict someone—or let them walk free—based on one single thing, which is exactly why we have a formal legal process in place...

Look, I know how the whole legal system works. I was just asking how they handle evidence in the real world when there's a chance it was planted. So, what you're saying is it basically comes down to judicial discretion?

It’s more of an assessment, but I’m not just looking at that one single piece of evidence, I'm weighing all of them together...

Sorry if I'm being a total pest here, but I've got one last question on this:

What happens if that's the only piece of physical evidence—aside from just the prosecutor's word—backing up the charge? Like, if the defendant is standing there claiming the whole thing is a lie and the evidence was planted, but a forensic expert can't even run tests on it? Isn't there supposed to be that principle where if the prosecution can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict has to go in favor of the defendant? Wasn'tn't that the whole deal with those guys who were recently acquitted for smuggling drugs through the Cleveland river?

Thanks again.

Well, obviously the defendant is going to claim that--

Otherwise, they wouldn't even bother filing an answer to the lawsuit—they'd just be sitting there waiting for a default judgment.

Thomas Miller80 said:Well, obviously the defendant is going to claim that--

Otherwise, they wouldn't even bother filing an answer to the lawsuit—they'd just be sitting there waiting for a default judgment.

What’s the name of that legal principle used when those drug smugglers in Cleveland got acquitted, and what does it actually mean?

It’s called *in dubio pro reo*... basically, if there's any reasonable doubt, the court has to rule in favor of the defendant. Of course, every single case is its own unique situation though...

Terry Howard said:Sorry if I'm being a total pest here, but I've got one last question on this:

What happens if that's the only piece of physical evidence—aside from just the prosecutor's word—backing up the charge? Like, if the defendant is standing there claiming the whole thing is a lie and the evidence was planted, but a forensic expert can't even run tests on it? Isn't there supposed to be that principle where if the prosecution can't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict has to go in favor of the defendant? Wasn'tn't that the whole deal with those guys who were recently acquitted for smuggling drugs through the Cleveland river?

Thanks again.

Sure, it exists—it’s rooted in the presumption of innocence—but it isn't quite as rigid or black-and-white as you seem to think it is... everything depends on the specifics of the case at hand, and sometimes, honestly, just the victim's word is enough even without any witnesses or physical evidence to back it up... there really isn't one simple answer to what you're asking based on the facts you've laid out here... at the end of the day, the court makes its ruling, and if you don't like how it works, I guess you can just cry about it...

urbanraven16 said:Sure, it exists—it’s rooted in the presumption of innocence—but it isn't quite as rigid or black-and-white as you seem to think it is... everything depends on the specifics of the case at hand, and sometimes, honestly, just the victim's word is enough even without any witnesses or physical evidence to back it up... there really isn't one simple answer to what you're asking based on the facts you've laid out here... at the end of the day, the court makes its ruling, and if you don't like how it works, I guess you can just cry about it...

Aha... so now you're claiming sometimes a victim's word or a witness is sufficient? When I pointed out that in drug abuse cases, police often coerce confessions even with a lawyer present just to clear the docket, you told me I was lying.

Where do you think this sudden "enlightenment" of yours came from?!

James Cox6 said:Aha... so now you're claiming sometimes a victim's word or a witness is sufficient? When I pointed out that in drug abuse cases, police often coerce confessions even with a lawyer present just to clear the docket, you told me I was lying.

Where do you think this sudden "enlightenment" of yours came from?!

Look, I haven't actually changed my mind, nor did I ever say that a confession made to the police alongside an attorney isn't enough sometimes...

What I’ve been saying, and what I still stand by, is that every single piece of evidence—including a confession given to the cops with a lawyer in the room—is subject to the judge's discretion...

It’s not just about what happens at the station; it’s not like this is the first time we've seen someone tell one story during the preliminary investigation and then flip the script entirely once they're standing before the trial judge... and when that happens, the court has to weigh everything and lay out the actual reasons why they're choosing to believe one version over the other...

James Cox6 said:Aha... so now you're claiming sometimes a victim's word or a witness is sufficient? When I pointed out that in drug abuse cases, police often coerce confessions even with a lawyer present just to clear the docket, you told me I was lying.

Where do you think this sudden "enlightenment" of yours came from?!

You guys are getting a little carried away with this whole "benefit of the doubt" thing...

What was written above has nothing to do with that principle. I mean, it's super easy to check if evidence obtained that way is actually legit (you know, a confession made under duress even when a lawyer is right there!)...

Seriously, try finding me one single lawyer who—after billing the county a massive fee just to show up at the precinct—is going to admit their client was beaten, harassed, threatened, or kept hungry and thirsty... and then say, "Yeah, despite all that, my client gave a statement that definitely isn't true."
Don't be ridiculous. That just doesn't happen in the real world..

urbanraven16 makes some points, sure..

urbanraven16 said:Look, I haven't actually changed my mind, nor did I ever say that a confession made to the police alongside an attorney isn't enough sometimes...

What I’ve been saying, and what I still stand by, is that every single piece of evidence—including a confession given to the cops with a lawyer in the room—is subject to the judge's discretion...

It’s not just about what happens at the station; it’s not like this is the first time we've seen someone tell one story during the preliminary investigation and then flip the script entirely once they're standing before the trial judge... and when that happens, the court has to weigh everything and lay out the actual reasons why they're choosing to believe one version over the other...

Sure, but if you're really a criminal law expert (as you claim), then you should know there’s nothing worse than changing your story. You need to stick to that initial statement—any attempt to manipulate or pivot your testimony immediately casts doubt on the credibility of both the witness and the defendant. Usually, the court will lean toward believing that first account.

Just look at the US Presidency's judicial precedents regarding how many confessions made during arrests with lawyers present have sent people straight to federal prison (take those notorious "small-time" vs. "big-time" mobsters in Cleveland as your example).

James Cox6, you know—sometimes having a defense attorney who’s an expert at shifting testimony can be incredibly useful... especially if the prosecution is building their entire case solely on a single perpetrator's statement... you wouldn't believe the kinds of legal gymnastics they can pull off.😲

Jonathan Bishop76 said:James Cox6, you know—sometimes having a defense attorney who’s an expert at shifting testimony can be incredibly useful... especially if the prosecution is building their entire case solely on a single perpetrator's statement... you wouldn't believe the kinds of legal gymnastics they can pull off.😲

Not "sometimes"... more like always. There’s nothing better than having a witness suddenly change their testimony!
Even when the defendant changes their story while I'm representing them—it's a dream!

In these two posts, we're revisiting an old topic where I argued that a suspect's initial statement—given during arrest to a lawyer on duty (especially in specific cases like narcotics)—can be used by someone looking to throw people in jail.
And that courts generally convict people based on those exact statements.

testdrive claimed that wasn't true—that judges actually investigate all evidence and weigh everything, and that that first police station statement doesn't carry much weight later on, basically saying my claim was impossible.

To which I replied that while it sounds impossible, it happens constantly. I told everyone to look at Supreme Court of the United States precedent where, say, in a Chicago courtroom, people were convicted based on logic like: "I sold it to him, and he sold it to a third party." Did you see him sell it to the third party? The answer was: "No, but the fifth guy told me the fourth guy bought it from the third."

That's the kind of testimony we're dealing with.

James Cox6 said:Not "sometimes"... more like always. There’s nothing better than having a witness suddenly change their testimony!
Even when the defendant changes their story while I'm representing them—it's a dream!

In these two posts, we're revisiting an old topic where I argued that a suspect's initial statement—given during arrest to a lawyer on duty (especially in specific cases like narcotics)—can be used by someone looking to throw people in jail.
And that courts generally convict people based on those exact statements.

testdrive claimed that wasn't true—that judges actually investigate all evidence and weigh everything, and that that first police station statement doesn't carry much weight later on, basically saying my claim was impossible.

To which I replied that while it sounds impossible, it happens constantly. I told everyone to look at Supreme Court of the United States precedent where, say, in a Chicago courtroom, people were convicted based on logic like: "I sold it to him, and he sold it to a third party." Did you see him sell it to the third party? The answer was: "No, but the fifth guy told me the fourth guy bought it from the third."

That's the kind of testimony we're dealing with.

I'll just quote my own words from that thread:

------------
2. What exactly is so confusing about how a judge evaluates evidence, specifically regarding Rule 351.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which states:

"The court must conscientiously evaluate every piece of evidence individually and in conjunction with the other evidence to draw a conclusion as to whether a fact has been proven."

So, like I already told you, there's no debate that a statement made to law enforcement in the presence of an attorney carries evidentiary weight, but it is by no means "irrefutable," nor is it fundamentally different from any other piece of evidence, and just because someone said something—whether it was to a cop or right there in front of the judge—doesn't automatically make it the absolute truth...

By the way, since you claim the criminal code is the "most complicated law ever," I'm assuming you aren't exactly best friends with it, but claiming that there is no presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding—which is literally guaranteed by the Constitution—is just going way too far...

----------------
So, I'm sticking to what I said, and I'm asking you to please stop making things up...

Furthermore, I honestly can't tell if you're genuinely misunderstanding the issue or if you're doing it on purpose, but you constantly pull things completely out of context, so I suspect that's what's happening here too: this whole "he told me, then the third guy told him" thing is what we call "hearsay," and a conviction for drug dealing certainly wasn't handed down solely on rumors, because alongside that kind of testimony, there had to be something else solid...

Just a little reminder that you were recently "shining" in your interpretation of legal precedent when we talked about the difference between possessing a joint for personal use versus giving one to a minor—you probably used that same flawed logic when trying to read into this disputed verdict...

And for the record, I'm not "bragging" about knowing criminal law, but you're the only one who took it upon herself to play judge, and you did it by constantly trying to categorize me somewhere on a spectrum between a random civilian and a federal prosecutor, even though I repeatedly asked you not to do that...

I'll repeat that request one more time and suggest once again that you stick to what's actually been written in our conversation...