[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Gabriel Ristorucci
Date: 18 Dec 2001
Time: 15:52:57
What the exact reasoning behind letting privileged statements that were wrongfully admitted not be the reason for overturning a conviction on appeal? On the one hand, it seems like it would be strange to let the defendant say that there was too much relevant information. But what's the point of having a policy of protecting privilege for larger public reasons if its not going to be enforced? It seems like this undercuts the whole purpose. Feel free to respond to this at your leisure as it's probably too late to add this topic to the final exam.