[Not_a_pizza]

"Mistakes" can also be just lack of sufficient evidence, or even evidence that is not collected properly. Mistakes do not always mean the party is innocent, just that we take them to be on a legal basis regardless of the truth.

[dontbenebby]

>"Mistakes" can also be just lack of sufficient evidence, or even evidence that is not collected properly. Mistakes do not always mean the party is innocent, just that we take them to be on a legal basis regardless of the truth.

I am extremely worried by China's panopticism, especially in Xinjiang[1]. But violating the rights of Chinese students so egregiously that you're unable to secure a conviction because your evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree"[2] harms American interests by handing a propaganda victory to the PRC.

The FBI needs to ensure they follow the law when they investigate espionage so that offenders can be changed and convicted.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/04/world/asia/xi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

[meowface]

Can you cite examples of them dropping cases against Chinese defendants because of evidence they had to exclude due to it being fruit of the poisonous tree? Inability to secure a conviction can happen for many reasons.

The FBI may very well have been overzealous here (especially considering the history of the organization), but I think we'd need to look at the facts of each case in detail, rather than only the charge and conviction statistics by nationality. The case with the Temple professor appears to have resulted from a misinterpreted email.

[dontbenebby]

Parent is the one who stated that mistakes "can also be just lack of sufficient evidence, or even evidence that is not collected properly.", they would be the one to ask about specific cases.

In general, you shouldn't be taking cases to trial you can't win, whether if it's due to evidence being thrown out or evidence not being present in the first place.