What the defense can rely on after yesterday’s ruling
Hello everyone, yesterday’s hearing was bittersweet. Of course, it is a partial victory, but it feels minimal when we think about the strongest evidence in the case. However, in light of this decision, I started wondering what weapons the defense may now have at its disposal. Sometimes even something that appears minor can have a major impact, especially considering that one of the constants of trials, and of this one in particular, is the element of surprise when you least expect it.
These are the thoughts I came to. I don’t know how much you may agree with me, but this is what came to mind.
- Suppression of Digital Evidence
The judge suppressed the cellphone and the computer microchip found in the backpack. This may seem small but the prosecution cannot present to the jury the data extracted directly from these devices (GPS history, messages, chats, web searches). Yes, they have the notebook but they lost the electronic “smoking gun” needed to prove the defendant’s physical presence in New York through direct tracking. One might argue that they have footage of him. From what we know, that man was masked. The only time we are able to see a face is inside the hostel and we do not know whether the surveillance footage they have is actually capable of proving that the person outside the Hilton is the same. We do not know, in fact, whether the recordings cut off and then resume only when the masked man is seen again at Starbucks.
- The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
Defense attorneys may seek suppression of any subsequent evidence that prosecutors obtained starting from the phone data or from the documents unlawfully seized at the McDonald’s.
- Suppression of Custodial Statements
The prosecution cannot use L's responses attempting to justify possession of false documents or the use of a fake name, thereby reducing the appearance of “consciousness of guilt” arising from his own words.
- Police Credibility
The team can aggressively cross-examine the police officers on the witness stand, highlighting how they violated the law by searching the backpack without a warrant and by allegedly inventing a false emergency. This is a great way to instill in jurors a “reasonable doubt” regarding the integrity and transparency of the entire investigation.
Last but not least.
- Strong Grounds for Appeal
In the worst case scenario the defense may argue before the Court of Appeals that the original illegality of the McDonald’s search “tainted” the entire backpack, thereby rendering unlawful the later discovery of the gun and the diary as well. If the appellate court accepts this argument, the conviction could be overturned and the trial invalidated.
I still hope that the misconduct from Altoona PD can play a huge role during the trial.