Do you think this movie is broken?

in my opinion, this is a good film, although it is far from the classic, but it is entirely a matter of the film's own techniques and ideas, and has nothing to do with whether the criminal planning is rigorous or not. Many friends have mentioned some "flaws" in the plot, and think that some of the hero's practices are buggy or illogical. Personally, I have always felt that there is no need to delve into this dead end to appreciate such a movie. However, as a legal practitioner, I really appreciate the careful design of the film "Using the judicial system to escape legal sanctions", so I still open a new post to briefly talk about my own views, hoping that the guys who are dissatisfied with the plot can be a reference. Since we are talking about the plot, of course, it is inevitable to expose the plot. It is strongly recommended that friends who have never seen a movie go to see this post first. Moreover, in fact, this is not a film review at all, but the reply text after I read some posts on the forum. So, I don't want to talk about Anthony Hopkins playing a high IQ criminal again after The Silence of the Lambs. Let's get back to the point. This film does not use the principle of "fruit of poisonous tree". Because the policeman has a special relationship with the victim and the suspect, he should not participate in the investigation and testimony of the case. Any evidence he obtained cannot be legally used to accuse the defendant. Therefore, as long as a male policeman comes to handle the case, whether he carries a gun or not, and whether he changes his gun or not-the gun, bullet and confession he holds will be ignored by the judge-even if the gun fired is in the hands of a hero. In this way, the most important evidence to determine the gun murder case was excluded-and the prosecution still didn't know all this. They thought it was a simple enough case, and it was too late to supplement the investigation when it was discovered. In this regard, the most famous practical case is Simpson's wife-killing case-the most important material evidence was excluded by the judge because of the defects in the process of obtaining evidence. However, civil litigation is not as strict as criminal litigation, so the jury in civil litigation accepted the evidence and found Simpson responsible. There is also the famous "Miranda" to ensure the validity of criminal evidence-further, I am interested in my own research.