Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Legend
That was not very interesting or insightful, I was hammered.
I fell asleep last night typing up a long post tearing yours apart, but since you're backing off, I'll keep it holstered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisGunBGud
I posted this earlier from another source. I'm not super brushed up on law so maybe someone in the know can chime in on this...
Spoilation of evidence actually allows such acts to be used by the prosecution as an inference of guilt.
Now, it's not as strong as the evidence itself, but you could still be convicted for the murder charge based on other evidence + the inference based on spoilation of evidence.
And on top of that you have extra charges for spoilation of evidence.
My guess, based on years of Law&Order reruns: a jury can consider "he smashed his phone/surveillance" as something a guilty person would do. Of course, seeing the data he destroyed would be stronger evidence of guilt, but just because we lost that (and can't consider it), doesn't mean we have to completely discard the fact that it existed.
No, we can't prove that data would have led to a conviction, because we haven't seen it, either--but we can infer that it was incriminating stuff.
Again, just a guess by yet another non-lawyer.