It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Avenatti could be barred from the courtroom for these violations.....
So that means no prosecution? Can you provide examples of precedence for this?
But if the private citizen acted on behalf of the government, a court will likely suppress the evidence just as if the police had found it. That’s because the “exclusionary rule,” providing that evidence found as a result of an illegal search is inadmissible, is designed to deter government agents—not private citizens—from unlawful snooping.
originally posted by: Phage
I don't assume it was through illegal means. I really don't think Avenatti is stupid enough to put himself in that sort of jeopardy. Maybe I'm wrong.
the simple fact that the intention of the private citizen, in this case Avenatti, was obviously to assist with prosecution of Cohen to further his case concerning Daniels would likely be sufficient.
Heh. Then why bother with a trial in any case at all, if the outcome is not guaranteed?
It's as much a matter of practicality as it is a matter of legal precedent. Of course he can be tried... but without all of the evidence, could he be convicted?
originally posted by: Phage
I wonder how he got it, yes. It should be an interesting story when we find out.
I don't assume it was through illegal means. I really don't think Avenatti is stupid enough to put himself in that sort of jeopardy. Maybe I'm wrong.
How do you know this?
Avenatti released SAR information to the public
That could be so.
Also the person who gave him this information is in
more trouble than he is.
I can see Mueller running into a big problem getting 67 senators to convict, if this is the strongest evidence though.
originally posted by: Arizonaguy
In fact, there have been cases in which police have deliberately enlisted the aid of co- conspirators to obtain he evidence to get around the exclusionary rule. It's a technicality, but it's legal.
I don't see the word "intent" in what you quoted.
Then why bother with a trial in any case at all, if the outcome is not guaranteed?