|
Cory,
The logic of the argument was as follows:
The Privacy Act of Washington state is one of 11 states that have what are called 'all-party consent' rules, which make it illegal to record or intercept conversations via electronic devices.
Court held that the mother's intentional eavesdropping violated the Act. The evidence is therefore inadmissible, because it was obtained illegally.
A new trial was ordered because the (now inadmissible) evidence was originally let in, which was overly prejudicial.
|