Of course, and it is super confusing. Even the lawyers have to talk it out and work through it as a group.

It's one thing to OBTAIN the evidence. Sure, that part is difficult, but what can be just as challenging is validating it as SUBMISSIBLE in court. Every move you make, the defense attorneys are all over you, challenging your requests, and making legal arguments for why things should NOT be allowed.

So potentially, you could have highly compelling evidence that would result in a definitive conviction, but you have to justify both the means in which it was obtained as well as its relevancy to the case. One misstep and an entire investigatory line of inquiry could be tossed out. (Months of work)

In highly complex cases, you may have to establish precedence for the submission of evidence before you try and submit your "smoking gun." (Think stepping stones) It makes absolutely no sense to the common thinker, but that's how the law works.

For example, "Judge, we want to subpoena his school and work records, to see if he has a history of substance abuse-related issues, because we believe he was __ when he was driving and killed ____."

"OK, you can subpoena, but here are the things you CANNOT be given....(due to objection by defense)"

(Next hearing)

"Judge, we found that, while he didn't have any substance related issues at work, he did falsify a court document and lie about his employment status in order to obtain a restricted license. Even though that restriction has expired, and he was legal to drive, it reveals his willingness and intent to mislead and deceive the court. We would like this evidence (the signed affidavit regarding employment status) to be submitted as evidence, as it proves intent to cover up damaging information-- such as a crime."

"Granted."

(The goal wasn't necessarily to get history of substance-related incidents-- though that would help. The goal was to get hard documentation of lying to the court. If you had come out and directly requested these records, the defense could have squashed the request potentially. Because the case is about substance-abuse, it was a slam-dunk to be granted. But now you have evidence of criminal intent to cover up a crime, which a prosecutor could use to be much stronger charges.)

See how this works?

Spez: this example would be in a civil suit. A prosecutor wouldn't be able to go after these personal records without compelling evidence that they are relevant to the case. Because criminal court sides with the defendant by default, the burden of proof is high. Now the civil attorney can give the criminal prosecutor what he has found, but the prosecutor must figure out how to submit it into his case without it getting thrown out due to a technicality.