Well, while it's hard, or even possibly impossible, to prove that those DVDs came out of his safe, the problem is not just a collection of child porn.
The problem is a collection of child porn *starring the accused*, which means that regardless of where it came from, it's damning towards him. They don't have to prove it's his porn from his safe.
And as far as admissibility goes, I'm pretty sure it's admissible. The cops didn't steal it, nor did they have any connection to the people who stole it. As far as they're concerned, it's an anonymous donation of evidence, meaning they have to prove that it's real, but they're allowed to use it.
At least, that's how I remember it working, but the last criminal law classes I took were in a Canadian University working towards an engineering degree, so they weren't real big on American rules of evidence. We could ask richboye or iocaste212 or sparkindarkness - they're lawyers, although Spark is a Brit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-04 11:45 am (UTC)--wait. That's not what I mean, exactly. More after coffee.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-04 01:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-04 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-07 11:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-07 11:25 pm (UTC)The problem is a collection of child porn *starring the accused*, which means that regardless of where it came from, it's damning towards him. They don't have to prove it's his porn from his safe.
And as far as admissibility goes, I'm pretty sure it's admissible. The cops didn't steal it, nor did they have any connection to the people who stole it. As far as they're concerned, it's an anonymous donation of evidence, meaning they have to prove that it's real, but they're allowed to use it.
At least, that's how I remember it working, but the last criminal law classes I took were in a Canadian University working towards an engineering degree, so they weren't real big on American rules of evidence. We could ask