As recently reported in The New York Times, Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, had a major victory in court this month regarding charges of soliciting a prostitute. Judge Leonard Hanser granted Kraft’s motion to suppress video evidence of the alleged act detailed by the prosecution. With this video evidence no longer admissible in court, the prosecution has been dealt a serious, potentially fatal blow. The Judge concurred with Kraft’s counsel that the way the video evidence was obtained did not satisfy constitutional guidelines regarding the privacy of the customers and therefore must be suppressed. The Judge went a step further, finding the search on Kraft’s car to have been an unconstitutional search, requiring that evidence to be suppressed as well. As a result of these motions being granted, the prosecutors have delayed their prosecution indefinitely while they appeal the motion to suppress.
The Most Useful Tool For An Effective Defense
A motion to suppress evidence is one of the most useful tools an effective defense team has at its disposal. If a motion to suppress is granted, it can result in a dramatically different outcome or even the dismissal of a case. So, when is a motion to suppress granted and what exactly is this motion? A motion to suppress is a motion to exclude certain evidence from trial. Such a motion is often used when evidence is obtained illegally or is in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. A motion to suppress can be understood as the enforcement mechanism behind what is known as the exclusionary rule, which is a rule that states evidence obtained illegally must be excluded from trial. Excluding illegally obtained evidence follows along with the themes of due process of law and fourth amendment rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures that can be found in the United States Constitution.
When To Exclude And How To Know If You Can
So, how do you know if you have a valid claim to exclude evidence from trial if you find yourself in a similar situation? To be honest, it can be a very complex legal question. In Robert Kraft’s case, his defense counsel was able to pinpoint those exact violations in a way that was convincing to the judge which compelled him to grant the motions to suppress. Effective counsel that is experienced in such matters can be the difference between a conviction and total dismissal of a case, as Robert Kraft may soon find out first hand if the prosecution decides to dismiss the matter. Something as simple as this procedural motion can derail an otherwise meritorious case against an individual if executed properly. It is therefore critical to obtain counsel that is proficient in the strategy of criminal litigation.