[teakettle42]

> We’re referencing a case where a state senator was convicted despite a drive (of potentially exculpatory evidence) being wiped. So no.

This senator was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist.

> OP suggested automatic not guilty for the defendant. Not fruit of the poisoned tree, where evidence can’t be used. Automatic exoneration.

What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people responsible for maintaining the chain of evidence?

Force the accused to prove the wiped evidence was exculpatory?

[JumpCrisscross]

> powerful person was not powerful enough (or was actually honest enough) to not leverage the illegal “get out of jail” cards that already exist

This can always be claimed about anything, both ways.

> What else are you going to do when potentially exculpatory evidence has been summarily wiped by the people

Look at the other evidence in appeal. (The defendant is appealing [1].)

[1] https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2018/sep/05/sentence-in-woods...

[cogman10]

The appeal was denied. The evidence was available through other means and was ultimately ruled to be inconsequential.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18...

[strbean]

You handle it in appeals, and the appeals court looks at the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence and makes a decision?

[teakettle42]

> the balance of the evidence weighed against the alleged exculpatory evidence

Surely you see the fundamental problem, here. This shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Demonstrating the previous existence and, in particular, the exculpatory nature of destroyed evidence is practically impossible.

If the state directly conspires to an unfair trial, the state’s case must be forfeit.

[cogman10]

The destroyed drive was discovered before the trial started and there was a motion for dismissal that was made, appealed, and ultimately denied because

A. The evidence was available through other means

B. It was not strong enough to exculpate the defendant

[1]

I agree that taking a strong inference against actions of prosecution when evidence is destroyed and unrecoverable. However, in this case, that's not what happened. Evidence was destroyed, but it was also preserved in other locations (it was uploaded on dropbox).

Our court system, while weak in many areas, isn't terrible in this sort of circumstance. It doesn't take hard lines because things are tricky.

This sort of problem with evidence is made to come out of the regular court proceedings. It's why discovery happens before we start a trial.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/18...

[salawat]

Glad to hear it was preserved. Absolutely mortified in other senses though. Thanks for the link to the case.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you see the fundamental problem

That we’re ignoring all of the evidence that contributed to the case (and conviction, which was made after the wiped drive was discovered) outside one laptop?

[salawat]

Yes. You are. Because ethics lapses by State actors who are empowered to such an asymmetric degree, demand it.

If exculpatory evidence is destroyed, adverse inference demands the court infer that that evidence be viewed in the worst light for the destroyer of the evidence, which in this case is the State. It really doesn't matter what was on that disk at this point. Now that the chain of evidence has been destroyed, we have to assume it truly was exculpatory.

Just as we'd assume a defendant destroying evidence would indicate it was so damning the jury should assume it was just the thing the State needed to prove their case.

Good of the goose, good of the gander. No self-referential inconsistency.

[teakettle42]

Is the prevailing goal of our justice system to convict this one particular defendant, or to ensure that trials are as fair as possible for all defendants?

[wonderwonder]

Unfortunately in most cases the defendant is far too poor to afford to hire an attorney for an appeal. Justice very often relies on the contents of your bank account

[JumpCrisscross]

> in most cases

In this case they’re an elected official who siphoned six figures out of state funds.

[wonderwonder]

I mean, they are an elected official convicted of doing so in the absence of exculpatory evidence that was deleted by an fbi agent.

[landemva]

Where did you learn that?

My experience in USA with appeals is they only look at technical process, mis-application of case law, or "clear error". Constitutional issue can be raised, and will lose basically every time.

Any balance or weighing of evidence is in the lower court.