I know the old laxative in the fridge item has been a stand by in office etiquette enforcement for longer than I've been alive.
The court follows the principle of clean hands. A thief is not going to have a compelling case against someone when they are throwing the first stone by stealing someone's sandwich. It's an interesting take, and I'd have to dive into actual case law to even determine if the test scenario is apocrypha or not. However, I doubt the laxative in sandwich argument would be compelling to a judge when there are much more relevant and easy to reach challenges to overcome.
-I.e. State mandated weakness to exploitation by Law Enforcement (You can't defend yourself from exploits used by Law Enforcement, which you are also not allowed to know about under Executive Privilege)
-The ability of the Government to ensure their tooling meets chain of custody preserving standards
Etc...
As usual, not a lawyer, just read a book on legal research and reasoning once.
The court follows the principle of clean hands. A thief is not going to have a compelling case against someone when they are throwing the first stone by stealing someone's sandwich. It's an interesting take, and I'd have to dive into actual case law to even determine if the test scenario is apocrypha or not. However, I doubt the laxative in sandwich argument would be compelling to a judge when there are much more relevant and easy to reach challenges to overcome.
-I.e. State mandated weakness to exploitation by Law Enforcement (You can't defend yourself from exploits used by Law Enforcement, which you are also not allowed to know about under Executive Privilege) -The ability of the Government to ensure their tooling meets chain of custody preserving standards Etc...
As usual, not a lawyer, just read a book on legal research and reasoning once.