[Devil_Anse]

You know what, Sandy? If Amber taped Scott on her own, without having first gone to the police, I think THAT tape would be MORE likely to be admissible even than the police-made tapes.

I mean, the main objection to something like that is that the STATE/GOVERNMENT was "violating his rights" under the Constitution. The State/government is allowed to be only so intrusive. But there is NO constraint on how intrusive an individual can be.

So if someone did that to him, some individual, then yes, he could take her to CIVIL court over it, perhaps. And if they have a wiretap law in CA, if she violated it, there might be trouble with that. BUT just b/c she might have violated some wiretap law doesn't automatically mean that her privately made tape would be inadmissible. I haven't read the CA law that says individuals can't tape THEIR OWN conversations with another person--I don't even know whether such a law exists. And Amber is not the State/government, so he can't complain that she violated his Constitutional rights--at least, not with the same punch that he could if the Big Bad State had "violated his Constitutional rights".

[Sandylapper]

You may be right and probably are, Anse. It's just that a lot of people (myself included), would wonder how a fair, impartial, objective judge, who is working under a presumption of innocence for the defendant, would let a tape made by the prosecution's witness (BEFORE she began working with LE), be played. Such a tape IMO would come under the heading of a personal agenda.