One reason is any evidence that was illegally obtained ... and any evidence gained because of it ... are inadmissible (even if they are factual). EG: Police enter/search without a warrant or reasonable cause and obtain evidence. That evidence, and any evidence later found due to following the first "poisoned" evidence, is inadmissible.
Most evidence gained from "sacred" communications ... EG: with the person's lawyer, priest confessor, or psychological counselor ... is inadmissible.
So a guilty person can walk if the method by which evidence was obtained was "illegal"? Examples Walt? I mean don't they wiretap eavesdrop infiltrate set up the guilty? I know you need permission from a judge to do that..like get a SEARCH WARRANT. So if you send someone to break in and enter a home and find conclusive evidence you can't use it because it was not based on the "right way" to do it? Also SACRED communications? I am not a fan. Why should a priest go to he** if he tells on someone who confessed he murdered someone? Why should a murderer walk? How about a psychiatrist who has a maniacal crackpot as a patient and he knows the client is going to murder someone? Does he just sit tight and be quiet and hope someone else will tell the truth? Or a lawyer? His client admits he murdered someone. What is the ethical obligation here? Defend a guilty person who lies in court? How is that remotely allowed for an "officer of the court" which all lawyers are? I dunno. The sanctity of the confessional seems very indefensible to me. You confess to a priest who does what with that knowledge? Pray to God for the soul of the perp? What about the victim? Thank you for your reply! :)
An example would be if a detective "knows" somebody is guilty of a murder, but doesn't have enough evidence for a warrant. So the detective goes and searches the suspect's home, without a warrant or "just cause" to enter the home. They find a diary that leads them to the murder weapon. Neither the diary nor murder weapon would be allowed as evidence. Nor any fingerprints or DNA off either. Nor the match between the murder weapon and the body wounds, or any recovered bullets (assuming the weapon was a firearm).
Or a lawyer? His client admits he murdered someone. What is the ethical obligation here? Defend a guilty person who lies in court? How is that remotely allowed for an "officer of the court" which all lawyers are?
That's why defendants seldom take the stand. Because the lawyer would have to reveal if they lied under oath ... and the Fifth Amendment says you can't be forced to testify against yourself. The lawyer is required to defend the client "to the best of their ability" - which means they can try to find any and every loophole in the law to get the person off.
I agree about "sacred" communications, as far as priests and counselors. But it makes sense with lawyers. Otherwise, nobody would talk to their lawyer, which would make it impossible for lawyers to do their job.
However, if a lawyer or counselor KNOWS there is a "reasonable" threat to someone else - I believe they are required to alert the police. I don't believe priests have the same legal requirement. If they do, I imagine there should be hundreds of them facing charges for hearing the confession of those pedophile priests and not reporting to the police.
Walt O'Reagun 