alt Hacker News> the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified
Is this legally true? At least in civil matters, destroying evidence typically causes the worst to be assumed about whatever was destroyed.
> the prosecution is required to demonstrate that evidence was in fact destroyed or falsified
Is this legally true? At least in civil matters, destroying evidence typically causes the worst to be assumed about whatever was destroyed.
I thought the standard for obtaining adverse/negative inference in a criminal case was higher than in a civil one, i.e. a judge will typically need more than just evidence that information was destroyed. But IANAL!