I understand that you do not like or approve of how the legal system works in the United States. I understand that you're projecting your personal feelings on my answers that are based on the procedural rules that everyone involved in this system has to follow. I am not going to respond to badgering or condescending questions or comments that imply that I have some agenda when I am simply answering procedural questions about how this actually works in the real world as a practicing litigator.
True crime has become a vibrant hobby for many people, including everyone on this website. But it does not control the system that decides whether people live or die, whether they are incarcerated or not.
Legal proceedings are governed by the federal and state Constitutions and the rules of criminal procedure in each state. Every state has a criminal code and rules of criminal procedure. Those statutes determine how a criminal proceeding progresses and what must be done to introduce evidence at trial.
1) Defendants are tried in open Court before a jury of their peers. Only evidence that is deemed admissible under the state rules of evidence can be introduced. Everything that is introduced must be substantiated and authenticated by a person qualified to introduce the evidence. Only in opening and closing statements can prosecutors or defense attorneys pontificate or give their theories of the case. Everything else is based on introducing or challenging admissible evidence. Evidence is a fact introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted. It must be relevant to the fact at issue and admissible.
At the end of the trial, jurors are instructed to go through the list of questions in the jury questionnaire and render their decisions only based on the evidence that is introduced as evidence in Court. They are explicitly instructed to not consider extraneous information they may have heard before or outside of trial. They could not consider what they read in the arrest affidavit a year before the trial. The arrest affidavit is literally irrelevant unless and until it is introduced as evidence in trial.
Before trial, both sides are able to file motions in limine to exclude evidence or testimony. The defense is able to file motions to suppress to exclude testimony or evidence that may have been collected in violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights. There are motions to qualify experts and Daubert motions to disqualify experts or certain scientific testimony.
Each piece of evidence will be introduced individually by the person who can authenticate the evidence. If we are discussing the defendant's phone records, a representative from the phone company will be called to the stand to authenticate the phone records. A detective who read the phone records will then testify as to what they say and why they find them important. The defense will have an opportunity to question the detective.
There is literally an entire statutory process that outlines how to determine what is relevant and admissible to prove the claims asserted.
2) It's not admissible because it's not evidence. I'm not here to teach a law school class. You can purchase a book on the Federal Rules of Evidence and learn what constitutes evidence on your own time.
3) A 150+ page arrest affidavit is odd because you don't normally need a novel to get a person arrested. Most arrest affidavits are 1-2 pages. In very complicated cases they can be 20-30 pages. All you need to arrest someone is probable cause that a crime was committed. You are not proving guilt or innocence. You are asking a judge for permission to restrict the person's liberty. It is up to the judge to grant or deny the request. Defendants can challenge the validity of arrest or information contained in the AA, but it is not evidence. It is the state's argument and interpretation. It is not subject to the rules of evidence because it is not evidence.
A typical arrest affidavit: "I pulled over the driver for not signaling before changing lanes. When the driver rolled down his window, I smelled marijuana. I asked the driver for permission to search the car. When I looked in the passenger window, I saw a bag that looked to me like marijuana."
Or "I responded to a call at XYZ ABC Street. Wife reports that her husband attacked her. The door is broken in and the wife has a black eye. Neighbor saw husband storm out and drive away minutes prior to the 911 call. Based on this testimony and what officers observed at the scene, we have probable cause to arrest the husband for assault, domestic violence."
I really have to ask: who benefits from releasing the arrest affidavit? Just nosy people overly involved in true crime. It doesn't benefit the victim, who was murdered, as it can jeopardize the state's case and give the defense an argument that the state's ex parte pontificating is poisoning the jury pool. It doesn't benefit the victim's children, who the judge already ruled could be harmed by the pretrial publicity. It doesn't benefit the state in that it will give the defense a way to challenge any changes in the state's case - why would you want to be tied to a document you drafted before actually having all of the evidence?
Sunshine laws are meant to hold the government accountable, not provide fodder for gossip. Public servants who attempt to use public access laws to circumvent Constitutional protections are just as bad as the gossips.
People are treating a very serious crime like a game. Like their personal novella. I have represented many victims and I have never seen a victim want their life exploited for the financial gain of true crime writers and Facebook gossip groups.
Victims want justice. And that means a conviction at trial that results in a serious sentence.
MOO
