During a police investigation, is all of the evidence that is collected supposed to be reported/presented? Or can the prosecution only submit what they want as evidence and keep ? Are there any rules related to this?
2007-03-26 01:45:21 · 4 answers · asked by ♥ Ruby ♥ 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
In Canada there was case law many years ago (R. vs. Stinchcombe) that says that EVERYTHING the police have discovered MUST be provided to the defence. If there is evidence withheld the case can be thrown out. The crown may not chose to present the evidence at trial, but the defence will be aware of it's existence.
2007-03-26 02:19:33 · answer #1 · answered by joeanonymous 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The prosecution admits only what supports their case. They have no need to support things that would cast a doubt or are irrelevant to the case. Police tend to tag and bag everything the prosecutor goes on what will work best for them. The defense gets the same list as the prosecutor as to what evidence has been collected and can also have their own team process it after the police do.
2007-03-26 09:01:59 · answer #2 · answered by dude0795 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
^true, with the exception that not every single piece has to be presented. The prosecution and defense decide what they want to admit into court, and each side must be aware of it to challenge. They are not going to admit every single item that isn't relevant. Alot of evidence is redundant.
2007-03-26 16:44:09 · answer #3 · answered by lovemytc 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yep there is...sometimes you need to search peoples houses and to do that and not have a search warant..and the evidence you find in that house or what not you wont beable to use in court against that person....becuz you were not authorize to search that person house so...there for that evidence dont exist...umm yeh do you get it...lol
2007-03-26 08:49:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋