[konschubert]

> "That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent."

So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide?

Then why even bother with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s

[vidarh]

No, they are saying there is a difference between a defendant saying "I did not do it" and a defendant saying "you didn't have a right to search my house, so the evidence you found there is inadmissible" or similar. E.g. the defendants asserting that they did not do the crime vs. those who assert they should not be convicted of the crime.

[konschubert]

My point is that the distinction between "actually innocent" and "not convicted due to a technicality" basically means that due process is circumvented.

If the police doesn't have the right to search the house but does it anyway, it can now turn a person from "actually innocent" to "technically not convicted". Which is for some purposes halfway to a conviction. This means that police gets rewarded for doing wrongful searches.