Thought I heard something begging for food...... Probably just the wind.
It doesn't really matter what this court did. If the defendant has a competent lawyer, they will appeal if found guilty and if need be go all the way to the supreme court.
No they won't. The person was found guilty and did appeal and it was upheld. There is no case for a federal appeal, the state guidelines are stricter than federal ones. If it had been a federal case it would not of even gotten this far. SCOTUS does not rule on on violations of state constitutions, that is all in the state courts.
Nope, in Texas the State Supreme Court is civil only it's the court of criminal appeals that is the highest state criminal court and they just ruled. The issue was one about the violation of state Constitution which is is a higher bar than the federal rules of evidence. This would of easily passed the federal guidelines and thus nothing to appeal. I mean sure you can appeal but the court won't hear it because there is no real basis.I'm not a hundred percent sure, but from what I remember from US gov back in highschool, I think they can appeal up to state supreme court. The SCOTUS can hear this case if the lawyers can argue that it is unconstitutional, which I believe there are some grounds to. (4th amendment). Just because one appeal is denied doesn't mean that can't continue to appeal it.
Nope, in Texas the State Supreme Court is civil only it's the court of criminal appeals that is the highest state criminal court and they just ruled. The issue was one about the violation of state Constitution which is is a higher bar than the federal rules of evidence. This would of easily passed the federal guidelines and thus nothing to appeal. I mean sure you can appeal but the court won't hear it because there is no real basis.
You're right about the court of criminal appeals, but from my understanding, federal laws always trump state laws. Brown vs Board of Education for example. How is search without warrant easily passing any federal guidelines...
Because federal rules of evidence say that even if evidence was obtained illegally it can be ruled admissible if it would of been discovered anyway. Inevitable discovery is one term for it. This is well established on the Federal level and the laws of Texas are more likely to rule something inadmissible than a federal court would because Texas courts have to abide by both State and Federal standards. Saying Federal always trumps State doesn't really apply in these cases unless it's a constitutional issue which this is not.
Nope but I find it interesting and when something like this comes up I tend to dig into it a bit and try to figure out whats really going on because the news articles are almost alway deficient on the facts.Makes sense to me. I guess it all boils down to whether there evidence would have been discovered anyway. You a lawyer or something? lol