The Supreme Court. We are just expanding what they are doing to allow for this reasonable mistake on the part of the police officer in gathering evidence. If he makes a reasonable mistake in good faith, that is subject to the same exclusionary rule possibility, but a third party, a judge, provides an objective standard and decides whether that comes in or not. But again, it allows for a reasonable mistake and does not punish society by excluding or keeping away that evidence from the jury.
Ed Bryant: “The Supreme Court. We are just expanding what they are doing to allow for this reasonable mistake on the part of the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a Supreme Court decision on police evidence gathering.
Share
More from Ed Bryant
We are not talking about everybody that is convicted of a crime that has to do this, but you know I always talked about on the campaign trail that we had I believe about 300 people on death row in Tennessee. And I told everybody if they…
Let me also respond regarding an inquiry that our colleague from California made on the statistics of perjury from that State
Of course, there has been a number of prosecutors, people involved in the legal system, but I would suspect both Jack and Linda have seen demands from their constituents, as I did, that we ought to make some changes here in our judicial…
Generally under the law that we passed today, if it is a State appeal, a State conviction they are appealing from, they have 1 year in which to file their habeas corpus petition. If it is a Federal appeal in which they are applying for…





