I agree with the decision. I'm kind of confused about the amount of resources going into this robbery--not to mention the level of defense the defendant is getting. I've heard of murder suspects getting less defense! Couldn't the phone record of the cell used to make the initial call provide enough information for the warrant? IANAL but it seems like the prosecution doesn't even need to introduce this evidence... plus doesn't the article say Taylor has already confessed? Why is this even on trial?
Just because a suspect confesses doesn't mean they skip the trial process. The normal procedure at that point is to plead guilty and head into sentencing. The police can have the defendant clearly on video describing the crime in exact detail but if he pleads not guilty you get a trial.
Which, even though it might seem odd at first, this is a good thing because how many people in the past were coerced to provide a confession to a crime they did not commit?
Yeah I agree. I guess that's what confused me is that maybe he recanted his confession or they weren't willing to bargain his sentence down to something he was willing to accept.
Maybe the confession does not support the specific charges they wanted to bring. And now the lack of the phone evidence might let the defendant off the hook for some of the charges.
My theory is that FBI is providing cities with some of these technologies as a sort of dog fooding. To iron out the kinks in their tracking technology. It does seem over kill to use something like that for a robbery, in a city like Baltimore.
I know your post was more about the defence and the trial.
