In Law and Order SVU, judges often throw out evidence like confessions, murder weapons, key evidence, crime scenes, because these things were obtained in violation of the defendant’s due process rights.
In one case, the killer confessed to his crimes and led police to the bodies.
When he was initially questioned, he mentioned that he had a current lawsuit for some minor crime, and when asked if he wanted a lawyer, he declined.
The judge threw out the confession, and the bodies (i.e. evidence that the murder victim was dead), because the killer had a current case, and when they mention this, the police are supposed to give the client their lawyer even if they decline it.
In a later episode, we see that this case is being covered (some time before it begins) on the news, where the reporters mention that the killer’s confession and the bodies were banned from being mentioned, including the mother’s baby, because there is no allowable physical evidence that the baby was dead (as her dead body was thrown out).
If you had seen the news report, and were on the jury in this case, would you ignore the fact you were only supposed to use the evidence presented in the case to make your verdict, and find this guy rightfully guilty, or would you allow this ridiculously stupid loophole to let the guy get away with murder (and he was found not guilty)?
I sure wouldn’t have listened to any of his testimony, I wouldn’t have cared what the judge said, I would be making sure he was found guilty no matter what.
(also, 222,222nd thread on this board, hooray for repeating numbers!)