Defending the Devil

At first some things about the legal system did not make sense to me, but I came around to accepting two out of three. Sort of...

One is the weird rule that evidence against a person that is acquired illegally cannot be held as evidence in court. I don't know if I'm seeing that right, but if I broke into a mans home and found a video of him abusing a minor, it's rendered void? Even though it is definitive evidence.

The only thing I can think of is this is a bad vs worse decision. Even though the ignoring of blatant evidence can be, potentially, devastating to a case where real justice was solely dependent on it, allowing this fact would probably have people breaking into email accounts and personal living quarters of someone who was not a criminal, only accused. Trespassing, invasion of privacy, and slander are some of the potential charges that can be hurled back at the person who tries such a method.

The second was lawyer confidentiality. The fact that even if a lawyer knew you were guilty- by direct evidence or confession- they are still mandated to defend you in court. Is this pure Hollywood or is this actually real? I tried thinking around it. At first I thought that not enforcing that rule would leave a defendant open to having their lawyer walk out on them or something based merely on rumor or opinion. That mandating he get a fair trial is a way to defend him against being convicted or charged without representation on the basis of public or personal bias. But would this hold up if the lawyer had solid, unimpeachable evidence? Irrefutable? A tape recording, a video, documents...I haven't been able to come to a conclusion on that one.

The last is the idea of Guilty or Innocent. I always found a bit chilling. Not in the majority of cases since a persons life or way of life (like career, social standing) isn't threatened, but when a persons life is on the line. They say you are guilty until proven innocent, but it's definitely the other way around. That's because law is a game of perception and persuasion. In the court, it does not matter what the truth is. If the case cannot be blown out by unimpeachable evidence, everything is subject to interpretation and manipulation. It's a contest between two lawyers who aren't really cross-interrogating witnesses, but each other, dancing around the rules of the courtroom like chess pieces trying to catch each other in corners and set-ups. Because of this, there are mistakes. But I guess this is another bad or worse scenario also. Which is worse, locking away the innocent with the guilty or freeing the guilty along with the innocent?