Admissibility of evidence/Verwertungsverbot

(Über Udo Vetter vom law blog): Ein Artikel in der Süddeutschen Zeitung berichtet:

bq. Prozess gegen R. Kelly vor dem Aus
Zwar gibt es Beweisfotos, die den US-Popsänger beim Sex mit Minderjährigen zeigen – aber im Verfahren gegen ihn dürfen sie nicht verwendet werden.

law blog vergleicht dies mit der Situation in Deutschland, wo Hausdurchsuchungen manchmal für rechtswidrig befunden werden, jedoch kein Verwertungsverbot daraus folgt.

law blog links to an article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Here’s an English version in Rolling Stone:

bq. R. Kelly scored a legal victory in his Florida child pornography case this week when a circuit judge ruled that photos of the singer allegedly having sex with an underage girl were illegally seized and inadmissible as evidence.

law blog points out that in Germany, even if searches are declared illegal, the evidence obtained illegally is normally accepted in court. This is because the court has to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages on both sides (Gesamtabwägung). The procedural rights of the defendant are weighed against the state’s interest in punishing. The courts, says Udo Vetter of law blog, use phrases like ‘considerable criminal energy’ (‘erhebliche kriminelle Energie’) and ‘gravity of likely sentence’ (‘Höhe der Strafdrohung’) to justify using the evidence against the defendant. As a result, searches of homes and businesses continue apace, the police secure in the knowledge that the evidence will be admitted in court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.