I mean, just as an example, the case of Depp v Heard. There was so much evidence of cocaine, her admitting she took mushrooms etc. I get that it wasn’t the point of the trial, but how come admitting to all this illegal activity and showing proof of it doesn’t lead to a conviction? I mean, if it was just part of evidence for a trial, could you kill someone too?
Again, I have no legal background or knowledge, so I’m asking as a complete pleb.
submitted by /u/Old_Yak_1285
[link] [comments]
r/NoStupidQuestions I mean, just as an example, the case of Depp v Heard. There was so much evidence of cocaine, her admitting she took mushrooms etc. I get that it wasn’t the point of the trial, but how come admitting to all this illegal activity and showing proof of it doesn’t lead to a conviction? I mean, if it was just part of evidence for a trial, could you kill someone too? Again, I have no legal background or knowledge, so I’m asking as a complete pleb. submitted by /u/Old_Yak_1285 [link] [comments]
I mean, just as an example, the case of Depp v Heard. There was so much evidence of cocaine, her admitting she took mushrooms etc. I get that it wasn’t the point of the trial, but how come admitting to all this illegal activity and showing proof of it doesn’t lead to a conviction? I mean, if it was just part of evidence for a trial, could you kill someone too?
Again, I have no legal background or knowledge, so I’m asking as a complete pleb.
submitted by /u/Old_Yak_1285
[link] [comments]