Warrantless Evidence

A few days ago, on this post, one commenter proposed that I was being too paranoid about the Justice Department's assertion that it could use information gained in the NSA warrantless wiretapping program as evidence in criminal trials. I am not surprised they feel they can do this. After all, they seem to have no problems with the illegality of the program, why would they let it stop them from using illegally gained information in court?

Anyway, the commenter in question identified themselves as a lawyer and implied that no judge would ever allow said evidence in a court, if a halfway competent lawyer was on the case to object to it. (Hopefully I am not misrepresenting his post, I am not a lawyer so while I try to understand the law, my knowledge of actual workings of trials is limited to what I see on TV. Knowing how poorly TV represents the realities of my own profession, I understand that the reality of the courtroom is probably somewhat different as well.)

I would invite the author of that comment to read and further comment on this news article from this morning. Obviously, because the government is claiming Top Secret, we have to read between the lines, but it sure appears as though there IS such evidence in the trial described, it IS being used, and the Judge in the case has refused to allow the defense access to it.

The defendants in the case are described as “Pakistani-Americans”, which means that they are American citizens. At least based on this article, this isn't a trial of a foreign national. And it doesn't appear as though the Judge has any problem with the evidence being secret and yet still being used as evidence.

So much for the right of full disclosure, so that the defense can fairly counter the evidence. I'll be watching this case of father and son Umer and Hamid Hayat. Maybe it won't go the way it looks like it's going to. But as it stands, this looks to me to be reason to worry.

Liam.