This is complicated because the transaction occurred in Canada but the case was heard in Chicago. But the argument is the same as forgery: the court may not be able to force Doig to authenticate it, but if the officer…
The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. There are no one -offs in common law countries. The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively…
Do you mean in reference to "knock back"? I think its supposed to be knock back like one would with a beer - as in, consume readily - rather than knock back as in knock away or disregard.
This is complicated because the transaction occurred in Canada but the case was heard in Chicago. But the argument is the same as forgery: the court may not be able to force Doig to authenticate it, but if the officer…
The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. There are no one -offs in common law countries. The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively…
Do you mean in reference to "knock back"? I think its supposed to be knock back like one would with a beer - as in, consume readily - rather than knock back as in knock away or disregard.