[DRAFT] A Trial On Stolen Evidence

[Troperia]

While witnessing one of the biggest murder trials in the history of @@NATION@@, it was revealed that defense attorney had presented a piece of stolen property as evidence.

Validity: Must have law enforcement.

[option]"What's wrong with presenting stolen evidence?" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, the attorney accused of the crime. "There's really no difference between stolen evidence and regular evidence. And besides, some people intentionally withhold evidence because they want innocent people to get arrested or guilty accomplices to remain free,"
[effect]Lawyers break into people's houses to find crucial evidence.
[stats]Civil Rights increases, Crime increases, Industry: Information Technology increases, Weaponization increases, Safety decreases, Niceness decreases

[option]"You can't possibly be considering allowing that!" exclaims honest prosecutor, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I mean, stealing evidence? Would we stoop so low to consider stealing as a last resort to defend our clients or prosecute them. No! We can't allow that. If someone wants to hide evidence, then that's their right,"
[effect]Trials take years to complete due to an overwhelming lack of evidence.
[stats]Authoritarianism increases, Satety increases, Rudeness increases, Crime decreases, Cheerfulness decreases

[option]"Why do we even need the court system anyway?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a person once wrongly convicted of a crime. "The system is corrupt, mean and out for your money. Many innocent people, like me, get convicted for no reason. Guilty people, on the other hand, get to enjoy all that wonderful freedom. What I'm saying is, we're better off without the system,"
[effect]Police officers punish criminals based on their biases.
[stats]Crime increases, Cheerfulness increases, Inclusiveness decreases, Law Enforcement decreases, Authoritarianism decreases, Employment decreases

[option]"Excuse me," says fresh-out-of-law-school rookie and the defense attorney of the accused, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "I'm sorry to interrupt but maybe we should decide if my client is guilty or innocent in another trial? In fact, I think we should also determine the punishment for the guilty in that same trial,"
[effect]Punishment for crimes are determined on a trial-to-trial basis.
[stats]Cheerfulness increases, Political Freedom increases, Law Enforcement increases, Government Size increases, Crime decreases, Authoritarianism decreases

[SUNTHREIT]

I like it. I'd love to see this become a real issue.

[Lord Emmanuel]

The issue is OK, but If I received it , I will dismissed it inorder not to affect my civil right.

[Notyoutopia]

Nice! I like it Lord Emmanuel!

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3-That makes no sense
Effect for Option 4-This is the entire definition of common law, a system which is used by ATLEAST 1/4 of real life nations

[A Humanist Science]

While witnessing one of the biggest murder trials in the history of @@NATION@@, it was revealed that defense attorney had presented a piece of stolen property as evidence.

What does "stolen" mean here? Did the accused steal it, and the police recover it? Did the police steal it, and so presumably violate some sort of probable cause or rule of evidence?

Did the defense actually steal it from someone who was otherwise trying to hide it? I'm not a lawyer or anything, but this frame doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. In my own observation (in the United States) it is typically the prosecution which is charged with collecting and presenting evidence (as the burden of proof is on the state, because the accused is innocent by default), including having to disclose evidence favoring the innocence of the accused. So, under such a principle, the defense wouldn't have to "steal" anything.

(you know, baring some sort of outrageous corruption which risks getting trials/convictions thrown out, and prosecutors disbarred. But your issue/description doesn't mention anything like that)