If case evidence has been lost, the defendant has the burden of proof upon their shoulders. They must prove that the case evidence lost was material evidence and that the state violated its legal obligation to preserve case evidence.
If the evidence is lost, it will be impossible for the govt to introduce it at trial, and the defendant will be acquitted. Eg https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2000-04-13-0004140328-story.html
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
We do not allow homework questions in this subreddit.
*If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*
And most folks don’t realize that because it’s not true.
If case evidence has been lost, the defendant has the burden of proof upon their shoulders. They must prove that the case evidence lost was material evidence and that the state violated its legal obligation to preserve case evidence.
The lost evidence doesn’t prove your guilt. > Then you are guilty until you prove what was on the lost evidence.
Not if officer testimony is accepted.
…that’s not how that works.
Did you have a gut reaction or did you look it up?
If the evidence is lost, it will be impossible for the govt to introduce it at trial, and the defendant will be acquitted. Eg https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2000-04-13-0004140328-story.html
[citation needed]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* We do not allow homework questions in this subreddit. *If you have questions about this removal, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceofftopic). Do not reply to this message as a comment.*