Re: Reasonable Doubt
If you image that you've been accused of hacking a bank. Prosecution brings all this "evidence" to the table, most of which is wrong and has either been made up or doctored.
Your defence lawyer stands up, does his thing and references the act in which you're being brought to court over and highlights the fact that it allows the prosecution to doctor evidence to suit and that the evidence doesn't actually have to be real in order to convict. Defence lawyer could then put it to the jury that because such a loop hole exists, the prosecution either needs to show that the evidence is real or undoctored, otherwise what is to say that the evidence is actually real.
So in one way it puts more pressure on the prosecution to make sure that any fabricated evidence is water tight, but it may be enough for the defence lawyer to highlight that aspect of the law, and leave it to the jurors own prejudice.
We won't know though until someone actually gets tried over this and whether it goes to appeal. That'll be the case used as a precedent.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
