I've enjoyed this movie numerous times over the past few years and one thing has always bugged me. If the DA knew the blood evidence would clear Jack and suppressed it, he was guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, right? Improper collection would have no bearing on exculpatory evidence. Are there any attorneys reading this who can comment?
"Think about it. If you were observing this planet,would you make contact?"
Tee DNA eveidence was collected incorrectly, and that is waht suppressed the evidence
shareYou didn't pay attention to my post. IMPROPER EVIDENCE COLLECTING HAS NO BEARING ON EVIDENCE THAT WILL DEFINITIVELY CLEAR AN ACCUSED FELON. The DA is not allowed to ignore it even if it was collected inproperly. This would have meant that the DA could not use it against the REAL robber, but it would have no bearing on Jack's case.
"Think about it. If you were observing this planet,would you make contact?"
Huh? What are you smoking?
If the evidence was collected improperly, then it is invalid regardless of what case it has bearing on. PERIOD.
Incorrectly collected physical evidence is not admissable. It wasn't suppressed, but not legal for the case in the first place.
Understand now?
You're missing my point. If the DA knew the blood at the crime scene wasn't Jack's, he knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. It should never have even gone to trial in the first place.
"Yessir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie. I put that envelope under that garbage."
You're missing my point. If the DA knew the blood at the crime scene wasn't Jack's, he knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. It should never have even gone to trial in the first place.Its true the DA could drop the charges if he wanted to however jack was probably facing a DA who cared more about his stats rather than Justice. share
Exactly just like the O.J Simpson trial.
shareThe OP is 100% corrrect.
Evidence that tends to prove a criminal defendant's innocence is exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense (regardless of how it was collected). The rules governing the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial are there to protect the criminal defendant; regardless of how the blood was collected, it would be admissible at trial.
It is a major plot hole, but that said, this not a movie that you watch for its realism.
Thanks for the reply, perl999. I'm glad someone finally saw my point and agreed with me. But you're right. It's a "fun" movie. Realism isn't that important.
Suddenly, LAPD Sgt. Al Powell found himself quite capable of drawing and firing his gun.
Yea it would be a violation of the right to a fair trial. Any evidence that is left out to suggest that the defendant is innocent would be a major violation of the right to a fair trial.
shareI love the film and never pass up an opportunity to see it on cable. I think it's underrated.
But why would the evidence be inadmissible since it couldn't be used by the prosecution to convict him? I thought most of the evidence that gets suppressed in pre-trial hearings is that which helps the prosecution. I guess if the defense presents an "affirmative defense" (actively seeks to prove the innocence of the defendant rather than just rebutting the prosecution's case and creating reasonable doubt), some evidence may be ruled out.
It's not made clear how the blood sample is "improperly collected." They never said "contaminated," but maybe that's what happened. If I were Jack's lawyer and it got suppressed, I would alert the media that the DA's office is prosecuting an innocent man and that the evidence that clears him was ruled inadmissible because of a technicality.
I'm not so sure. I'm not any kind of legal beagle, but let's just assume for a second that the reason it was 'incorrectly collected' was that it was mixed up with another blood batch, and therefore was impossible to tell if it was the bank robber's blood, or someone elses. We now have a situation where we don't really know whose blood that is.
SpiltPersonality