[ashtonkem]

In a sane world, that would be destruction of evidence. You shouldn’t be able to tell the court evidence exists and then destroy it before you let anyone else examine it.

[anigbrowl]

Yeah, if strict liability applied in such cases prosecutors and other parties would be a great deal more careful about what they dared assert.

[GoblinSlayer]

As I understand, the evidence wasn't owned by prosecution, but by Apple. It's like saying "the truth is out there", which is technically true, but shouldn't count as evidence until collected.

[netizen-936824]

Then why was it used for an arrest warrant? Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue? Or can you just claim to have video evidence of a murder to get someone you don't like arrested?

[TeMPOraL]

> Should evidence not be examined before the warrant is issue?

Examined and secured. Having evidence in official custody should be a prerequisite for using it in an official capacity - or stuff like this happens.

[ashtonkem]

Generally it should be secured before an arrest warrant is issued, examined before a trial

You don’t have a right to fight an arrest warrant. But you do have a right to review the evidence that will be used against you during your trial.

[netizen-936824]

I think the general point still stands. The evidence was no secured either.

[KittenInABox]

Prosecution should be held in contempt of court if they fail to keep their own evidence securely, including the platforms and locations of storage.

I think prosecutors should go to jail if they keep their evidence in a building covered in kerosene and then "whoops" the evidence has gone up in flames.

[laurent92]

Especially if it is found later during discovery.

[phone[phone]]

We're at the "educate yourself, shitlord!" phase of criminal prosecution.