Which seems to me to be an easy proposition much like the one septimus described. Now that the prosecution knows the end result, its simply a matter of reverse engineering a plausible scenario where the evidence would have been found by a different manner.
Yeah, pretty much. But ISTM that there’s effectively a presumption against independent discovery. Bricker can probably elucidate.
Yes.
The state usually has the burden of showing that the evidence was developed independently of the tainted testimony, and the presumption is that it was not. The state typically needs to take measures like a “Chinese Wall” between the investigators that have the tainted information and the investigators that develop the replacement information without recourse to the tainted evidence.
And of course the defense is permitted to depose the people involved and try to show that this did not happen.
So in that case, the defense can examine, under oath, the Park Department employee and the prosecutor and reveal that contact. We assume the prosecutor is (usually) not willing to risk prison and disbarment for perjury just to achieve one conviction – and even less so the Park Department guy.
Re: the Case of the Late Lovebirds
But wait, as stated by septimus, all the prosecutor was doing was telling Ms. Knope–uh, I mean, the Parks Department person–that this was where the bodies could be found. There was no indication that there would be follow-up prosecution. Doesn’t this sometimes happen in cases where the prosecutor wants to at least locate a body or bodies to close the case (and let the families know what happened)? Or is the prosecutor forbidden from using the info in any way, even if immunity from prosecution has been granted? If that’s the case, what’s the point of asking the question?
I’d just hate to think that the owners of those lovebirds will never know what happened to them.
Sure, they can go find the bodies - but it will doom any subsequent prosecution (at least any that rely on evidence collected from the dump site.)