Our perception of how evidence is used is totally flawed and based on watching CSI, not on reality...
thoughts on LE...
1. Forget what you think you know about entrapment defenses. It is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is on YOU not the court, to show that you were not predisposed to commit the crime. Good luck with that. It's risky... In claiming you were hoodwinked into the act, you're essentially acknowledging that you did the act... So if it doesn't work, you're doomed.
2. You can't have evidence thrown out "just cuz." The discussion always ends up treating evidence like there's a checklist required to determine guilt, and if you're sly enough to leave one item out, the checklist falls apart and you're free to go. The question isn't "will the sum of the evidence check all the boxes on the guilt checklist." The question is "will the sum of the evidence portray me to a jury of 12 average folk as being guilty enough to not extend me the benefit of the doubt." A much lower standard than you're hoping for.
3. Evidence only needs to be admissable to use it in court. One local city, for instance, takes great pride in outing people instead of going to trial, and in fact their "outing" program was upheld a few years ago by the MN Supreme Court. Why take the evidence before a judge, where it has to live up to criminal standards, when they can just take it to your family, friends, and employer, where it only has to live up to a civil standard? In the second case, they only need enough proof to survive your lawsuit, a much lower standard than that required for conviction. Like the entarpment defense, it turns the table--since you would be the plaintiff, it places the burden of proof of your innocence on you, not the state.
time to start thinking about not paying for a membership on a board, and using a hotmail type account on a public computer at a libray in a small town you do not live in.
tough thoug to get around the "evidence" that a provider may accumulate.
I for one would never use a CC to pay for a service. there are some ways to get around the cell phone "record" but I cannot share the techniques and only tell you they exist.
Our perception of how evidence is used is totally flawed and based on watching CSI, not on reality...
thoughts on LE...
1. Forget what you think you know about entrapment defenses. It is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is on YOU not the court, to show that you were not predisposed to commit the crime. Good luck with that. It's risky... In claiming you were hoodwinked into the act, you're essentially acknowledging that you did the act... So if it doesn't work, you're doomed.
2. You can't have evidence thrown out "just cuz." The discussion always ends up treating evidence like there's a checklist required to determine guilt, and if you're sly enough to leave one item out, the checklist falls apart and you're free to go. The question isn't "will the sum of the evidence check all the boxes on the guilt checklist." The question is "will the sum of the evidence portray me to a jury of 12 average folk as being guilty enough to not extend me the benefit of the doubt." A much lower standard than you're hoping for.
3. Evidence only needs to be admissable to use it in court. One local city, for instance, takes great pride in outing people instead of going to trial, and in fact their "outing" program was upheld a few years ago by the MN Supreme Court. Why take the evidence before a judge, where it has to live up to criminal standards, when they can just take it to your family, friends, and employer, where it only has to live up to a civil standard? In the second case, they only need enough proof to survive your lawsuit, a much lower standard than that required for conviction. Like the entarpment defense, it turns the table--since you would be the plaintiff, it places the burden of proof of your innocence on you, not the state.