A LITTLE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE

The detractors at the other sites seem to have little or no knowledge of the rules of evidence as to what is admissible or not admissible   in a trial. Case in point are the so called PM'S that found their way into the discovery.


The Pm's are NOT admissible for the following reasons:


First: They are hearsay:
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

In order to be admissible the PM'S would have to be supported by DIRECT EVIDENCE:

Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.

NEXT, IS THAT THEY ARE IRRELEVANT  OR  IMMATERIAL

Irrelevant Evidence:

That which does not support the issue, and which) of course, must be excluded.

B. Immaterial Evidence:

Immaterial evidence is evidence that is not directed to any factual proposition at issue under substantive law. Materiality is judged against the elements necessary to prove a claim, an element of a claim or a defense. As a rule of substantive law, it is determined by the law applicable to the case. 

Now just exactly what is discovery? 

Discovery is a process that allows the parties (state and criminal defendant in criminal cases; and plaintiff and defendant in civil cases) to learn the strengths and weaknesses of each other's case--for example, by obtaining the names and statements of witnesses the other side intends to call at trial.

This paragraph regarding discovery is interesting:

Limits on What Can Be Discovered

Virtually any bit of information that might have even a slight connection to the lawsuit is fair game for discovery. But this enormous latitude sometimes leads to abuse. Lawyers might try to pry into subjects that have no legitimate significance for the lawsuit, or that are private and confidential, serving only to annoy or embarrass the parties. Fortunately, there are some legal limits on this kind of probing, and some protections to keep private material from being disclosed to the public.

Since the pm conversations were meant to be PRIVATE:

Title XLVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Chapter 934 SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS View Entire Chapter 934.03  Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.-- (1)  Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who: (a)  Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b)  Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor

Florida has the strictest privacy laws in the country. The law covers EVERY form of communications INCLUDING e-mails or PRIVATE (instant) MESSAGES.

 Neither the defense nor the Prosecution can use the PM'S at trial because they were obtained illegally.

Last but least:

NOTHING I SAID OR WAS PURPORTED TO SAID IN THE PM'S IS A CRIME. AS ONE DETECTIVE PUT IT:

"THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST BAD TASTE."

MURT

Evidence is put forth in a trial to prove an issue of fact and often the parties in a case have conflicting explanations of what the facts are. If evidence put forth does not offer support or proof on an issue in the trial, that evidence is deemed irrelevant and is thus inadmissible

Read more: What Is Material Evidence? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5417733_material-evidence.html#ixzz0qpVAvsou