You are at the Caught.net Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website

The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine

When "inadmissible" evidence becomes "admissible"
and Constitutional rights become a crap shoot!

Quoted from wiki: Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that allows evidence of a defendant's guilt that would otherwise be considered inadmissible under the exclusionary rule to be admitted into evidence in a trial. The doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is admissible in court if it can be established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. The rationale for the rule is that police misconduct is sufficiently deterred and the interests of society are better served by putting police in the same position that they would have been in without the rights violation, not a worse position.

Caught.net note: The rules of civil procedure used by all U.S. Courts require that a plaintiff prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This roughly means a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage. The defendant in a civil case doesn't have to do anything to defend their case if the plaintiff fails to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

However, in criminal law there is a much higher burden. The prosecutor must prove that the accused did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This roughly means that there is a great likelihood the accused committed the crime.  Most courts refuse to attach any numbers to the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but some people believe it means 90%, 95%, or even 99% sure.

So, in criminal matters, this rule allows evidence in a criminal case to proceed using the civil case standard of proof - the "preponderance of the evidence".  It allows a criminal case to proceed on assumptions, a "second guessing" of how things MIGHT have gone.

A caught.net reader states: This doctrine or rule gives the courts the option to disregard your constitutional rights violations and can totally remove any right to dismissals of cases. The courts can proceed on what amounts to an assumption. It works like this: The court will suggest a hypothetical situation, proposing the question, "What if we had a second chance and followed protocol (due process) correctly? Would we still have obtained this so called evidence?"
Remember, all it takes is a cop to say they had probable cause prior to the illegal search. No other "proof" required.  This is most commonly used in an illegal search. (4th amendment violation to constitutional rights)

This doctrine in itself, is a direct violation to your 14th amendment constitutional rights (right to due process),which was clearly not followed if you were illegally searched, and is a continuance of these violations to due process, by not addressing federal law, which supposedly trumps state law! The obvious 4th amendment violation, being the first constitutional violation(itself grounds for dismissal),and the doctrine of inevitable discovery being a violation of the 14th amendment (also grounds for dismissal) negate civil rights and due process as intended and allows the courts to continue violating your rights to due process! See Inevitable Discovery study.

Graphic Line
Graphic Line
This is your conscience.  Help this site by donating!
Donate online NOW
Due to volume, we only deal with
electronic communications
now (email).

-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?   Tithing - Fact vs. Fiction