So Bonfire of the Vanities was on TV today and the major point of the movie was that a tape that was made proving the accused Tom Hanks innocent had been illegally obtained - there was an illegal wire tap in the apartment where the girl admitted to driving the car. He was going to have to lie to prove his innocence and say he recorded the tape himself. Now I’m not sure if it was a civil or criminal lawsuit, but it seemed really odd to me that a tape that would prove a man innocent would be inadmissable in court if said tape had been obtained without a warrant.
Now I can see if this tape would be unusable against incriminating the girl who really committed the crime, but is this really an accurate depiction of our legal system - would a man really go to jail for a crime due to inadmissable evidence that would have cleared his name?
Since nobody with any actual legal knowledge has weighed in on this, I guess I will.
It does not seem reasonable that the defense would not be able to introduce the tape. Wiretapping laws exist to protect the privacy of individuals. Hanks’ character should be able to waive this protection in order to present exculpatory evidence.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above is uneducated speculation. I have not read Bonfire of the Vanities nor seen more than five minutes of the movie (thank goodness).
There’s no 4th Amendment problem here, but there may be an issue of authenticity. Basically, for matter (other than testimony) to be introduced into evidence you need to show that it is what it purports to be. One of the ways to show authenticity is for a person to testify that he created the thing. Maybe that’s what was going on.