# Illegal search evidence introduced by back door **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761 "2007-10-15T05:23:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/1 "2007-10-15T05:23:42Z")
Law & Order provoking yet another legal question. In one episode the cops searched a suspect’s car and found incriminating evidence - traces of the victim’s vomit, etc. Defense counsel successfully challenged the legality of the search and the evidence was thrown out. Later in the trial, during cross-examination, the accused states that the victim had never been in his car. Jack McCoy pounces. “How do you then account for the fact that her vomit was found in your car?” Over the indignant objections of the defense counsel the judge allows the question. Cut. The next scene shows the jury chairman solemnly announcing a verdict of Guilty. McCoy has turned the case around and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by finding a way to get the contents of the car in. Now the legal question/s. Is this kosher? Would a judge really allow evidence that he had previously thrown out to be introduced in this manner? We’re not shown the response of the accused but if he’d said, “There was no vomit found in my car” could they have proved him a liar by using the tainted evidence? I find it a little puzzling because surely all evidence that had been excluded because it was improperly obtained could be introduced in this manner, simply by asking the accused a question about it. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Who](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Doctor\_Who](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Who)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/2 "2007-10-15T05:27:39Z")
[QUOTE=aldiboronti] I find it a little puzzling because surely all evidence that had been excluded because it was improperly obtained could be introduced in this manner, simply by asking the accused a question about it. [/QUOTE] Haven’t seen the episode, but from your description, it sounds like McCoy is using the evidence to IMPEACH the witness. That’s certainly allowable. The basic policy is that we don’t allow people to get up and perjure themselves on the stand and get away with it. So … if a smoking gun is found and then excluded, McCoy could not bring it up to prove the accused is guilty. However … if a smoking gun is found and then excluded, and then the accused takes the stand and says, “there is no smoking gun”, McCoy could use the excluded gun to show that the accused is a liar, in order to impeach his testimony. It’s not so much a back door as a penalty for perjury. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/3 "2007-10-15T06:54:18Z")
**Dr Who** has it, exactly. A defendant’s statements made in response to proper cross-examination are subject to impeachment by the government, even by evidence that has been illegally obtained and would be inadmissible as substantive evidence of guilt. _US v. Haven_, 446 U.S. 620 (1980), see similar reasoning for hearsay admission in _Harris v. New York_, 401 U.S. 222 (1971); see also _Oregon v. Hass_, 420 U.S. 714 (1975). ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/4 "2007-10-15T09:43:35Z")
[QUOTE=Doctor Who] Haven’t seen the episode, but from your description, it sounds like McCoy is using the evidence to IMPEACH the witness. That’s certainly allowable. The basic policy is that we don’t allow people to get up and perjure themselves on the stand and get away with it. So … if a smoking gun is found and then excluded, McCoy could not bring it up to prove the accused is guilty. However … if a smoking gun is found and then excluded, and then the accused takes the stand and says, “there is no smoking gun”, McCoy could use the excluded gun to show that the accused is a liar, in order to impeach his testimony. It’s not so much a back door as a penalty for perjury. [/QUOTE] That’s what I wondered about. If the prosecution can bring excluded evidence in simply by asking the accused a question about it there hardly seems much point in excluding it. Is the only recourse for the defense that they not put the accused up to testify at all? (Thus inevitably raising questions in the jurors’ minds, even though they’re not supposed to let that influence them). It just looks as if the bases are loaded against the defense, it’s a win-win situation for the prosecutor. He wins if the evidence isn’t excluded, he also wins if it is as he simply has to bring it up in cross-examination, or force the defense to create a bad impression by the defendant not testifying. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/5 "2007-10-15T10:47:38Z")
[QUOTE=aldiboronti] That’s what I wondered about. If the prosecution can bring excluded evidence in simply by asking the accused a question about it there hardly seems much point in excluding it. Is the only recourse for the defense that they not put the accused up to testify at all? (Thus inevitably raising questions in the jurors’ minds, even though they’re not supposed to let that influence them). [/quote] I think that a lot of the time, the excluded evidence is basically the only evidence against the defendant. So in theory, the defendant could elect not to testify, wait until the close of the prosecution’s case, and then have the judge enter a verdict in his or her favor. No? For example, imagine the typical situation in which a random dude is drivin alone in his car and is caught with narcotics and drug paraphanelia, and the narcotics and drug paraphanelia are both supressed. In that case, what sort of case would the prosecution present? What witnesses would be called? I looks to me like the prosecutor would have to drop the case. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/6 "2007-10-15T11:00:06Z")
[QUOTE=aldiboronti] That’s what I wondered about. If the prosecution can bring excluded evidence in simply by asking the accused a question about it there hardly seems much point in excluding it. Is the only recourse for the defense that they not put the accused up to testify at all? (Thus inevitably raising questions in the jurors’ minds, even though they’re not supposed to let that influence them). It just looks as if the bases are loaded against the defense, it’s a win-win situation for the prosecutor. He wins if the evidence isn’t excluded, he also wins if it is as he simply has to bring it up in cross-examination, or force the defense to create a bad impression by the defendant not testifying. [/QUOTE] I am not a lawyer, but I have watched a lot of ‘Law and Order’. 🆒 McCoy doesn’t simply ask direct questions about the excluded evidence. There will be a prompt objection by defence counsel. If McCoy persists, he gets told off in the Judge’s chambers. However if the accused introduces the topic (like when a accused terrorist claimed he’s never killed anyone), McCoy can introduce a rebuttal witness. In the light of this I’m not quite sure about your objections. If the accused makes lying statements about the excluded evidence, then it seems perfectly fair the prosecution can refute them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/7 "2007-10-15T14:19:40Z")
It’s important to note a couple of things about my quote above: _A defendant’s statements made in response to **proper** cross-examination are subject to impeachment by the government…_ (emphasis added). Proper cross-examination is limited to questions reasonably suggested by the testimony elicited during direct examination. A prosecutor can’t, as **glee** ’s post explains nicely, simply bring up evidence that was ruled inadmissible by asking a question. However, in the summary of the episode (which I haven’t seen either, so I’m going only by what’s been said by the OP), we see: > [@](#): > > Later in the trial, during cross-examination, the accused states that the victim had never been in his car. Jack McCoy pounces. “How do you then account for the fact that her vomit was found in your car?” We can assume that the defendant’s claim that the victim was never in his car was in response to a proper question – that is, the defendant’s direct testimony either explictly offered that claim, or the implication of his testimony was very clear. If it wasn’t – if McCoy’s initial question, the one that elicited the “…he was never in my car,” testimony, did _not_ reasonably relate to the direct examination, then the defense should have objected to it. And if the defendant just blurted it out as a non-responsive answer to a permissible question… well, then he has to live with the results. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/8 "2007-10-15T15:36:03Z")
Woudln’t there be an objection “Your Honor, there is no evidence that the victim’s vomit was found in the car.” ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/9 "2007-10-15T15:37:49Z")
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas] Woudln’t there be an objection “Your Honor, there is no evidence that the victim’s vomit was found in the car.” [/QUOTE] To which McCoy responds with a copy of the forensics report which shows that the victim’s vomit was found in the car. That portion of the report may have been excluded initially but, as has been noted, can be introduced to show that the witness has lied. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/10 "2007-10-15T16:00:59Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Proper cross-examination is limited to questions reasonably suggested by the testimony elicited during direct examination. [/QUOTE] Here’s the Virginia rule: > [@](#): > > (b) Scope of cross-examination. > > (i) Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination. > > (ii) In a criminal case, if a defendant testifies on his own behalf and denies guilt as to an offense charged, cross-examination of the defendant may be permitted in the discretion of the court into any matter relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence. [http://www.valawyersweekly.com/varules.cfm](http://www.valawyersweekly.com/varules.cfm) Some jurisdictions have what we call “wide-open cross examination.” Here is the Michigan rule: > [@](#): > > (b) Scope of cross-examination. A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. The judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination. [http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/rules/documents/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf](http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/rules/documents/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf) Even in a wide-open cross jurisdiction, the prosecutor can’t ask a witness about supressed evidence. But all of that changes if the witness brings the topic up. If the witness, as in this example says, “the dead guy was never in my car.” The prosecutor can challenge that statement, even with suppressed evidence. This is called “opening the door.” > [@](#): > > “Opening the Door.” “On occasion, defense tactics which . . . seek to gain extraordinary advantage from the fact of suppression of certain evidence may . . . be deemed to have ‘opened the door’ to at least limited receipt of that evidence.” 6 LaFave § 11.6(b), at 411. Defense tactics > are most likely to be found to have opened the door if they involved a calculated effort to create a high degree of confusion based upon knowledge that any adequate explanation would require some reference to evidence previously suppressed.6 LaFave § 11.6(b), at 412. [http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court\_of\_appeals/Recent\_Opinions/20061116/6-667.pdf](http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20061116/6-667.pdf) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=app\08280202.ewn&invol=2](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=in&vol=app%5C08280202.ewn&invol=2) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=app2\96-2221&invol=1](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=app2%5C96-2221&invol=1) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/11 "2007-10-15T16:02:48Z")
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas] Woudln’t there be an objection “Your Honor, there is no evidence that the victim’s vomit was found in the car.” [/QUOTE] Actually, a good point. The objection is “no foundation.” But since McCoy can make an offer of proof – in fact, he hardly needs to, since both the judge and the defense are fully conversant with the issue – then it’s likely the judge will permit the question, since he knows that McCoy has and can lay a foundation for the question. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/12 "2007-10-15T16:43:18Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Actually, a good point. The objection is “no foundation.” [/QUOTE] Or even, if we want to get hyper-technical, “assumes facts not in evidence.” Then, when McCoy waives the report in the defendant’s face, “hearsay.” No foundation, in most cases, means conditional relevance has not been established (not the case here), this witness hasn’t been qualified as an expert on this topic (possibly works here), or you haven’t laid the foundation for a hearsay exception (most likely in this case). Of course, if all of those objections get made in front of the jury, the jurors are thinking, “The defense lawyer really doesn’t want me to hear about this, I’d better pay attention.” ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/13 "2007-10-15T17:19:43Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A prosecutor can’t, as **glee** ’s post explains nicely, simply bring up evidence that was ruled inadmissible by asking a question. [/QUOTE] Hah! I’ve been complimented on a brief legal explanation by a real lawyer. 🆒 Where’s my chocolate? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/14 "2007-10-15T18:13:01Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Or even, if we want to get hyper-technical, “assumes facts not in evidence.” Then, when McCoy waives the report in the defendant’s face, “hearsay.” No foundation, in most cases, means conditional relevance has not been established (not the case here), this witness hasn’t been qualified as an expert on this topic (possibly works here), or you haven’t laid the foundation for a hearsay exception (most likely in this case). [/quote] Sure. Either objection is sufficient to (a) preserve the record, and (b) stop the witness from answering. I guess it would be of value to know what New York’s rule on the scope of cross-examination is. I was somewhat familar with Virginia’s already :P. > [@](#): > > Of course, if all of those objections get made in front of the jury, the jurors are thinking, “The defense lawyer really doesn’t want me to hear about this, I’d better pay attention.” Yes, these are arguments best made at the bench or, if they promise to require extensive back-and-forth, after you send the jury to lunch. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/15 "2007-10-15T18:17:33Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I guess it would be of value to know what New York’s rule on the scope of cross-examination is. I was somewhat familar with Virginia’s already :P. [/QUOTE] Actually, I came back to say that it probably doesn’t matter because the Court sort of embedded the “reasonably suggested” standard in _Havens_: > [@](#): > > [We] hold that a defendant’s statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant’s direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government, albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and that is inadmissible on the government’s direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence of guilt. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=446&invol=620#626](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=446&invol=620#626) And the Court explained what it meant: > [@](#): > > In arriving at its judgment, the Court of Appeals noted that in response to defense counsel’s objection to the impeaching evidence on the ground that the matter had not been “covered on direct,” the trial court had remarked that “\*t does not have to be covered on direct.” The Court of Appeals thought this was error since in its view illegally seized evidence could be used only to impeach a statement made on direct examination. As we have indicated, we hold a contrary view; and we do not understand the District Court to have indicated that the Government’s question, the answer to which is sought to be impeached, need not be proper cross-examination in the first instance. The Court of Appeals did not suggest that either the cross-examination or the impeachment of Havens would have been improper absent the use of illegally seized evidence, and we cannot accept respondent’s suggestions that because of the illegal search and seizure, the Government’s questions about the T-shirt were improper cross-examination. McLeroth testified that Havens had assisted him in preparing the T-shirt for smuggling. Havens, in his direct testimony, acknowledged McLeroth’s prior testimony that the cocaine “was taped or draped around his body and so on” but denied that he had “ever engage[d] in that kind of activity with Mr. McLeroth . . . .” This testimony could easily be understood as a denial of any connection with McLeroth’s T-shirt and as a contradiction of McLeroth’s testimony. Quite reasonably, it seems to us, the Government on cross-examination called attention to his answers on direct and then asked whether he had anything to do with sewing the cotton swatches on McLeroth’s T-shirt. This was cross-examination growing out of Havens’ direct testimony; and, as we hold above, the ensuing impeachment did not violate Havens’ constitutional rights. Id. In other words, if the defendant takes the stand and lies, otherwise-excludable evidence is admissible to attack his credibility, but not to establish the prosecution’s case-in-chief. This is true whether the evidence is relevant to the crime in question or a collateral matter. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=401&page=225](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=401&page=225) The rationale: > [@](#): > > It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=347&page=66#66](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=347&page=66#66) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/16 "2007-10-15T18:40:30Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I guess it would be of value to know what New York’s rule on the scope of cross-examination is. I was somewhat familar with Virginia’s already . [/QUOTE] It’s, er . . . both . . . maybe: > [@](#): > > Cross-examination is restricted to the development of matters brought out on direct examination and all reasonable inferences therefrom as well as to matters bearing on credibility. The New York rule is thus not dissimilar to FRE, R. 611(b). The judge has the discretion to permit the cross-examiner to go into matters outside the scope of the direct as on direct examination [no leading questions, limits on impeachment, etc]. The judge can require that if the cross-examiner wants to go into new matters that she wait until her next case-in-chief or rebuttal. > > The Second Department has held that in criminal cases, a party may prove through cross-examination any relevant proposition, regardless of the scope of the direct examination. People v. Kennedy, 70 A.D.2d 181 (2nd Dept. 1979). However, other New York courts apply the general limitation above stated in criminal as well as in civil cases. > > Defendant witness. Where the defendant testifies on his own behalf he may be cross-examined as to any matter relevant in the case. Cross-examination is not restricted to the direct. The reason for this difference is because the “scope-of-cross-examination” rule is a rule relating to the orderliness of the presentation of evidence and that has no application to the defendant when a witness. The prosecution cannot take the defendant as its own witness at any time in the case. [http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0NY%20EVIDENCE%20LAW%202006%20UPDATED.pdf](http://www.law.syr.edu/Pdfs/0NY%20EVIDENCE%20LAW%202006%20UPDATED.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/17 "2007-10-15T18:42:32Z")
[QUOTE=glee] However if the accused introduces the topic (like when a accused terrorist claimed he’s never killed anyone), McCoy can introduce a rebuttal witness. [/QUOTE] I assume you’re thinking of the 1991 episode “The Troubles”, in which Anthony Heald plays an imprisoned Sinn Fein member who is suspsected of killing another Federal prisoner. He claimed to not be a member of the IRA. Ben Stone (not McCoy) impeached him by introducing details of an IRA bombing in 1981 that killed three Britons, described by the surviving family member who pointed out Heald as the man who left the exploding satchel on a street-corner. As for the episode the OP is asking about, 1995’s “Guardian”, I always wondered why the title character, played by Jon Cypher, testified at all, or how his lawyer (who knew about the suppressed forensics report, being the one who successfully challenged it) would let him testify untruthfully. Seems to me Cypher could have easily spun the facts to make himself look sympathetic - the boy, an aspiring med student, got high with his sister (a known and troublesome drug addict) and called Cypher, who’d been cleaning up the family’s messes for years. Cypher then told the boy to get lost and drove the overdosed sister to a hospital but she expired along the way. Not wanting the boy’s promising medical career to be destroyed, he dropped the body off in a schoolyard and hoped it would look entirely like her own fault. If _anyone_ was complicit in her death, it was her brother. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/18 "2007-10-15T20:08:34Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I assume you’re thinking of the 1991 episode “The Troubles”, in which Anthony Heald plays an imprisoned Sinn Fein member who is suspsected of killing another Federal prisoner. He claimed to not be a member of the IRA. Ben Stone (not McCoy) impeached him by introducing details of an IRA bombing in 1981 that killed three Britons, described by the surviving family member who pointed out Heald as the man who left the exploding satchel on a street-corner. [/quote] That’s indeed the episode. However I’m pretty sure that the IRA guy actually claimed never to have killed anyone (because you can legally be in Sinn Fein - the IRA’s political wing). The refutation was the witness whose family the guy blew up. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/19 "2007-10-15T20:25:25Z")
What I’ve seen is the judge admonishing the defense attorney, “Your client opened the door,” meaning if he’d kept his mouth shut, the evidence would have stayed out. Are judges allowed to point out objectionable statements? I was on a jury once and a witness said that someone told her about a message someone else had left on her machine and talked about what that person had said in the message. That seemed hearsay to me, but the defense didn’t object and the judge didn’t say anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2007, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761/20 "2007-10-15T21:12:07Z")
[QUOTE=ivylass] What I’ve seen is the judge admonishing the defense attorney, “Your client opened the door,” meaning if he’d kept his mouth shut, the evidence would have stayed out. Are judges allowed to point out objectionable statements? I was on a jury once and a witness said that someone told her about a message someone else had left on her machine and talked about what that person had said in the message. That seemed hearsay to me, but the defense didn’t object and the judge didn’t say anything. [/QUOTE] It’s only hearsay if it is admitted for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. And even if it is hearsay, it mat fall into a recognized exception to the hearsay rules. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-search-evidence-introduced-by-back-door/422761.md?page=2)