Never heard of that guy!
Sorry, I meant RNATB (and edited thusly). Hand is one of the best known jurists who never served on the Supremes. Many people who are familiar with him are surprised to hear that he never actually sat on the high court.
Indeed. Which is not to say that there isn’t room for debate of the exclusionary rule(s), and whether some other mechanism might not be more effective. Me, I like the exclusionary rule, though I might combine it with some other deterrent as well–personal liability for officers/departments that violate rights, for example. Given the powerful incentive for police/prosecutors to be seen as ‘tough on crime’, as well as a myriad of issues that make law enforcement a hard target for other forms of redress, though, I’d never want to rely on monetary penalties alone.
As to the OP, both of his ‘examples’ can be stripped down to this: He doesn’t agree with perhaps the single most honored principle of our criminal justice system, that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither ‘example’ is a ‘legal technicality’ of the sort people typically complain of (i.e., illegal search, forced confession); rather, both are failures of evidence necessary to convict. In short, he appears to be arguing for justice by the mob, to be meted out against those everybody ‘knows’ are guilty and who ‘look like’ lunatics.
While I recognize that I suffer from a certain conflict of interest as an officer of the court, albeit one who has never set foot in a criminal courtroom (and by the grace of god, never shall! ;)), I’ll have to say that for my money, we can stick with the neutral application of established law against well-defined standards of proof rather than, “we all know he did it!”.
Is the OP under the mistaken impression that the SDMB is associated with Facebook? We actually question vague claims like yours-in Facebook jargon, we are “haters”.
The failure of a court to instruct a jury to such, in and of itself is not reversible error, but close to it.
Allowing this kind of discretion would be a good way not to stay the “leader of free liberal law” (whatever that is).
If mistakes jeopardize the case, in all likelihood, they’re pretty important mistakes. The kind of “mistakes” that could make you end up with a long sentence despite not being guilty of anything.
It’s all about protecting your rights and has nothing to do with “punishing the lawyer”.
Many people consider giving defendants a fair trial to be an equally, if not more important goal.
I am. But I was drunk. Or something. Seriously, I have no idea where that came from. I thought you had accidentally changed the name in the quote box when I saw it just now. :smack:
Eh, no biggie, counselor, don’t sweat it. This section is ungraded. 
Well, he does admit that he’s not all that bright…
I am always drunk Not really!
I knew he was a Justice as he authored Palko, which was later overturned by Benton/Maryland, the study of Incorporation.