Court Orders Retrial In Google Maps-Related Murder Case 152
netbuzz writes "Ruling that a judge erred in blocking two computer security experts from testifying that an incriminating Google Maps search record found on the defendant's laptop was planted there, a North Carolina appeals court has ordered a new trial for ex-Cisco employee Bradley Cooper, convicted two years ago in the 2008 strangulation death of his wife Nancy. 'The sole physical evidence linking Defendant to Ms. Cooper's murder was the alleged Google Map search, conducted on Defendant's laptop, of the exact area where Ms. Cooper's body was discovered,' wrote the appeals court. 'We hold ... that erroneously preventing Defendant from presenting expert testimony, challenging arguably the strongest piece of the State's evidence, constituted reversible error and requires a new trial.'"
Re:The playbook is now written (Score:4, Informative)
uhm... that does somewhat beg the question as to how many times you've murdered her already.
No, it does not somewhat beg the question. [wikipedia.org]
That raises a new question.
Re:Does Cisco hire morons? (Score:3, Informative)
It should be fairly easy to tell, its not like Google doesn't log EVERY FUCKING REQUEST.
Re:This shouldn't be news (Score:5, Informative)
The prosecutors didn't suppress evidence - the judge ruled that experts couldn't testify. And that's his bloody job.
The judge is elected by and paid by taxpayers [ncbar.org]. The majority of those taxpayers will never be privy to the inner workings of the trial, whether by chance or by intent to remain ignorant of local trial proceedings. However, the judge's opponent in the next round of elections will take any opportunity (s)he can to paint the incumbent as incompetent or lenient on criminals, which might be enough to sway the election. Do the math before you rush to such quick judgement.
I also suggest you take a few minutes to review this information [wordpress.com].
Re:This shouldn't be news (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The judge is supposed to be an unbiased advocate of the law. His or her job is to conduct the trial and ensure that the rights of both the defendant and the People are protected. In practice of course few judges are totally unbiased, but that's how it is supposed to work. The presumption of innocence is just what it sounds like. It has nothing to do with the judge having a bias, and a judge is certainly not an advocate for the defendant.