Why exactly is the evidence inadmissible?
My guess is because it can prove the cop is lying or somesuch. Nobody would care otherwise.
But if it can prove that the cop is lying, why not submit it? It could be the key to the whole case.
Or am I misunderstanding things again? D:
I think it'd be inadmissible because of how it was acquired, not what the evidence actually is.
Admissibility of evidence goes off the Rules of Evidence, (whereby state evidence rules tend to track federal rules). It gets rather complex to say the least, (it is an entire full class in law school and there are countless appellate cases on subject). The rules determine what is admissible and what is not as a matter of law. Without going into boring rule numbers:
Hearsay is an out of court statement said to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The problem is that the person (source) of the statement is not IN THE COURTROOM. This means they can’t be cross examined, which is a legit, major problem. There are well defined exceptions to the hearsay rule and if the statement in question meets one of these exceptions, then the statement is admitted into evidence.
Here, the statement in question was from a person unrelated to the case that the alleged arresting officer had pulled over his car right after the arrest. There is no possible way that the officer could have arrested defendant and been on the other side of the jurisdiction to make a traffic stop. The math simply doesn’t add up, especially with traffic lights, etc. It is my personal, unsubstantiated belief that the officer let him go "with a warning" because he knew damn well he had no reason to stop him and was on a fishing expedition to find something.... An officer may have arrested defendant, this officer simply did not.
The problems with getting this guy into court to testify are primarily threefold. First, the guy has work I’m sure he’d love to explain to his boss why he can’t come in one day. Second, the officer let him off with a warning, I’m sure he wants to repay this kindness by ratting him out, especially given that he will have to deal with officer in the future. Third, even and especially if I had a subpoena issued and forced him to appear, that doesn’t mean he’d willingly testify.
With no written evidence (no ticket written), and no willing witness I’m screwed. Additionally, the video from the squad car has not been made available to me, which is B.S.. I don't have the energy to appeal this either.