In the criminal justice evidence is a necessity in solving crimes and cases. Criminal evidence is defined as any exhibit or testimony presented to a crime. Evidence helps prove the guilt or innocence of a person who was charged for crime that was committed. There are five major categories of evidence. This includes: admissible, suppressed, hearsay, character, and scientific and forensic evidence. The first evidence I will be talking about is admissible. Evidence must be competent, relevant, and material in order to be admitted at court. Admissible evidence must reasonably help prove or disprove different facts. The degree of evidence will determine whether or not the judge or jury will find a person guilty or innocent. The next evidence
…show more content…
There have been cases where there was evidence illegally collected and it ended up affecting the outcome of the case. One case was Katz v. U.S. In this case a person named Katz was arrested after FBI agents overheard him making illegal gambling bets in a public phone booth. Once this happened the government attached electronic listening and recording devices to the outside of the phone booth. They did this so they could obtain audio evidence that there was in fact illegal gambling going on. Once the government had obtained enough evidence they arrested Katz. After he was arrested Katz claimed the government violated his fourth amendment rights. Throughout the case the argument Katz and his attorney provided was the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area and the FBI violated his privacy by attaching the recording devices to the phone booth. The government’s rebuttal was Katz’s privacy was not invaded because the agents did not invade the booth before the performance of the search and seizure. When it was all said and done the final decision was the government violated Katz’s right to privacy. I personally agree with the ruling of this case. I think the government could have done things differently and found Katz guilty but it would have taken longer. Just because something can be done to make the evidence clear a crime was committed does not always mean that is the best thing to do. This case is a …show more content…
Ohio. In 1968 there was a man by the name of John Terry who was stopped and searched by an officer after Terry seemingly was casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer observed Terry talking to an individual and was repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The two men would occasionally peep into the store window and then proceed to talk more. Eventually a third man came into play and the other two eventually followed the third man up the street. Once the officer saw this he decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. During the frisk Terry had a concealed weapon and was arrested. The issue was whether or not the search was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled the search was reasonable because the officer had probable cause and reasonably believed the defendant could have been armed. A key to this case was the officer did not have the men detained long during the stop and frisk. I believe that the officer did a good job performing his duties and prevented what could have been a serious situation. If the officer did not do this it could have led to a robbery gone wrong and an innocent life could have been lost for no reason. The quick thinking of this cop was just a small example of the intensive training each cop undergoes while in an
There have been cases where there was evidence illegally collected and it ended up affecting the outcome of the case. One case was Katz v. U.S. In this case a person named Katz was arrested after FBI agents overheard him making illegal gambling bets in a public phone booth. Once this happened the government attached electronic listening and recording devices to the outside of the phone booth. They did this so they could obtain audio evidence that there was in fact illegal gambling going on. Once the government had obtained enough evidence they arrested Katz. After he was arrested Katz claimed the government violated his fourth amendment rights. Throughout the case the argument Katz and his attorney provided was the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area and the FBI violated his privacy by attaching the recording devices to the phone booth. The government’s rebuttal was Katz’s privacy was not invaded because the agents did not invade the booth before the performance of the search and seizure. When it was all said and done the final decision was the government violated Katz’s right to privacy. I personally agree with the ruling of this case. I think the government could have done things differently and found Katz guilty but it would have taken longer. Just because something can be done to make the evidence clear a crime was committed does not always mean that is the best thing to do. This case is a …show more content…
Ohio. In 1968 there was a man by the name of John Terry who was stopped and searched by an officer after Terry seemingly was casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer observed Terry talking to an individual and was repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The two men would occasionally peep into the store window and then proceed to talk more. Eventually a third man came into play and the other two eventually followed the third man up the street. Once the officer saw this he decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. During the frisk Terry had a concealed weapon and was arrested. The issue was whether or not the search was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled the search was reasonable because the officer had probable cause and reasonably believed the defendant could have been armed. A key to this case was the officer did not have the men detained long during the stop and frisk. I believe that the officer did a good job performing his duties and prevented what could have been a serious situation. If the officer did not do this it could have led to a robbery gone wrong and an innocent life could have been lost for no reason. The quick thinking of this cop was just a small example of the intensive training each cop undergoes while in an