oh yes

heres one case wherein a state law was declared unconstitutional because it prohibit admission of a certain exculpatory evidence Holmes v. South Carolina :: 547 U.S. 319 (2006)

How far did it have to go before it got that declaration?

that cased was based on established law

Meow

was going 2 cite wed site with actual opinion but wont let me herein

ffs, dude.

It's a supreme court case

It had to go all the way to the top before it the constitution got to be invoked.

Just like I said.

well yes, the defendant was convicted of murder in state court

yes but the evidence he was trying 2 use was flimsy at best because it was third part hearsay

Does he get reparations for the entire time he had to crawl through the legal system?

I know the answer is he does not.

but the supreme court said essentially it doesnt matter how questionable the evidence is: if its potentially exculpatory, it must be admitted

And how long did it take from accusation through every appeal and eventually the supreme court before home dude was exonerated?

and how much did his life get wrecked during that time and doubtlessly beyond?

yes but my point is

a recording can never be questioned to be fake

I agree that the US Constitution trumps state law, but you know that in order to invoke that protection, you have to go through the whole process until the supreme court finally gets around to hearing the case and have the money to do it and your life to be ruined.

no

i used that case all the time

Yeah, because someone had gone through the process.

I know about the importance of legal precedent.

exculpatory evidence can never be excluded in USA, regardless how it was obtain

Why hasn't anyone been able to make alimony and child support illegal based on the 13th amendment?

is not applicable to child support or alimony based upon it legislative history

Coverture should also be abolished since it's not necessary in this modern age.

im not versed on family law as much as criminal law: thats y i was mad when DDJ got crazy

Yeah, it's late and I'm kind of spinning a little off center.

Apologies for haranguing you.

im just trying 2 enlighten my fellow red pill men on how 2 safeguard against false accusations . thats my goal here

I'm sure you heard about Canada straight up doing the opposite, right?

yes

but is not as bad as u think lol

I dunno, man. It looks pretty bad.

essentially the law says exculpatory evidence can still be used as long as its disclosed 2 prosecution b4 trial

Why are we making it easier to prosecute?

so i can see a scenario wherein right b4 a rape-trial, u email a video of the consensual fucking lol

So, you can't spring surprise evidence

yes