MovieChat Forums > Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) Discussion > What does the law say?

What does the law say?

posted 7 years ago by ke_neth1981
4 replies | jump to latest

Im not a lawyer, nor study law but as in real life so like in this film, wouldn't the law require the evidence be seen as inadmissible or rejected eventually because they were not procured by legal means? Im merely trying to understand the legal aspect of it.

Moreover wouldn't Reacher and Turner eventually be required to serve term because of breaking and entering, theft, evading arrest etc etc?

The basis of my assumption is the recent Jay Michaud case where the FBI refused to disclose the means of gathering evidence against him in the child pornography case resulting in all evidence being thrown out of court.

Anyone with knowledge about the law and can help me understand?

[–] ke_neth1981 7 years ago

No one legally enlightened enuf?

[–] trenchcoatwizard 7 years ago

It's something that happens in every film of this genre; the good guy goes on the run and breaks dozens of laws in order to clear his name of the original charge. In the real world Reacher would be facing hundreds of years in charges.

"No man yet found drinks his tea blacker"

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

This.

[–] TheGalen (1) 7 years ago

Yes that is correct that evidence obtained illegally will not be able to be used in a case against them.