If the consequence of destroying evidence is less than the consequence of being convicted of the crime that evidence supports, you destroy evidence. Simple economics.
Spoliation can be grounds for the judge to give the jury adverse inference instructions. i.e., the jury is allowed to assume that whatever was info was destroyed would have been damaging to the defendant's case.
No shit
This isn't a murder trial. This can have significantly adverse affects on the punitive damages.
Just look at the Alex Jones trial for a recent example.
How much has Jones paid?
That's irrelevant to my point, which was that destroying evidence in a trial with monetary damages can result in increased damages, instead of avoiding them.
If you're still not getting it, you should reread the comment thread and to see the context for that example being used.
If the consequence of destroying evidence is less than the consequence of being convicted of the crime that evidence supports, you destroy evidence. Simple economics.
Spoliation can be grounds for the judge to give the jury adverse inference instructions. i.e., the jury is allowed to assume that whatever was info was destroyed would have been damaging to the defendant's case.
No shit
This isn't a murder trial. This can have significantly adverse affects on the punitive damages.
Just look at the Alex Jones trial for a recent example.
How much has Jones paid?
That's irrelevant to my point, which was that destroying evidence in a trial with monetary damages can result in increased damages, instead of avoiding them.
If you're still not getting it, you should reread the comment thread and to see the context for that example being used.