If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.
He warns that government control over evidence can manipulate the judicial process to the detriment of the accused.
Share
More from Lysander Spooner
In that case the trial is really a trial by the government, and not by the jury.
Practically speaking, no government knows any limits to its power, except the endurance of the people.
Why should they not have such an administration of justice as they desire, and can understand?
It would also be making them consent to what they regard as the destruction of their own rights.