Without evidence that surpasses reasonable doubt, the police strive to collect any evidence to support their belief that Marshall is guilty and they succeed. Marshall does not receive the equal benefit of the…
The exclusionary rule isn’t considered a constitutional right. It’s a judicially created to safeguard the Fourth Amendment rights through the deterrent effects, making the costs and benefits of the excluding inherently trustworthy and tangible evidence which has to be weighed, and remedy must be applied where costs is acceptable and the deterrent effect is…
Police officers did not have the right to approach the porch of Jardines’ house to find evidence, this is know as exclusionary rule,improperly gathered evidence may not be introduce in a criminal…
The Court said that police did not try to evade the warrant requirements intentionally and the exigent circumstances supported the warrantless search. In 2010, The Kentucky Supreme Court then reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. They said the officers were not in pursuit of the original suspect when they entered the apartment, which makes the entry improper. Question of the Law: When an emergency has been created by the police, is the exclusionary rule still in effect and apply?…
Elizabeth, I do concede that Dripps model of the contingent exclusionary rule is fascinating; yet, it is my opinion that there are pros and cons. It is without doubt that the present exclusionary rule is controversial. I also concede that there isn’t a need to completely re-invent the wheel. Conversely, Dripps argues in regards of the contingent suppression order in which prosecutors would have to choose between accepting exclusion of evidence obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment obtained through infractions of the Fourth Amendment or accepting the imposition of a damages judgment against the state under an administration of statutory damages (Tipton, 2010).…
In view of the modification of the exclusionary rule, the Court of Appeals' judgment cannot stand in this case. Only respondent Leon contended that no reasonably well trained police officer could have believed that there existed probable cause to search his house. However, the record establishes that the police officer’s reliance on the state-court judge's determination of…
This precedent, established by Coffin v. United States, asserts that all persons accused of committing a crime are “innocent until proven guilty” and are only found guilty if evidence makes one's guilt appear to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” ("Coffin v. United States", 2017). Additionally, a precedent was set in In re Winship that stated that the presumption of innocence was among some of the "essentials of due process and fair treatment" ("In re Winship", 2017). The Colorado Exoneration Act as it currently stands, essentially requires defendants to prove they are innocent in order to receive their money back, which by nature makes an assumption that the defendant is guilty, even though the court has found this to not be true. A requirement that requires individuals to prove their innocence is clearly contradictory to the common precedent of assuming individuals are innocent until proven…
Question 1: Discuss the arguments for and against the exclusionary rule. Be sure to provide examples and explain your position on the exclusionary rule. Answer: The exclusionary rule is “A judicial rule that makes evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state, or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 214).…
Please answer the following questions related to Deviance. The answers should be from one to four sentences depending on the question. To give you more space in the answering, you may attach a word document at the end. 1. Define Deviance.…
Concretely, surveys show that over half of respondents undertake the idea that drug felons comprise the large percentage of the country's inmate population. Virtually 80 percent are certain that judges ought to be discrete in passing judgment on the basis details of the case as a substitute for being constricted by fixed minimum sentences. These beliefs are optimally true and the federal government should amend the approaches it takes on petty crimes to prevent incarcerating many people for far too…
Reading Response 3-30 Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky was the most challenging book that I have read this year, prose-wise. Dostoevsky tends to go on at great length with his descriptions of Raskolnikov’s thought processes, which tends to lead to great blocks of text that can wear on the eyes after too long. However, I didn’t find the book boring - it was simply laborious to read and had a tone that was a little too nihilistic for me to really be able to get into it. I found that I most enjoyed the novel when the focus wasn’t on Raskolnikov solely, but rather when it explored his relationships with Sonya, Dunya, and Razumikhin. His interactions with Porfiry were also quite entertaining to read, as earlier on when it was unconfirmed…
Arthur Train, author of The Prisoner At The Bar, wrote about how the police court whom is the first step to justice. In 1905 the magistrates were the one that held rulings on misdemeanors and petty crimes, whether there rulings were justified or not could be held up to question. Someone who breaks the laws and before being convicted is considered a criminal; after he has been sentenced he is considered a convict; but during the proceedings he is considered to be a “prisoner at the bar”. When the criminal commits a crime he gets automatically sent to the police court where the magistrate will decide with all the evidence presented to him whether he is guilty or not.…
Over the course of the years, many have been wrongfully convicted and accused of crimes they did not commit. The mission of the judicial system is to prove your guilt and if they can successfully do so beyond a reasonable doubt, then you will be convicted of that crime. Everyone walks into the court innocent until proven guilty, but unfortunately some proven guilty people are still very much innocent. In one case where this so happened to be true was during the case of Brenton Butler. Brenton Butler was accused of allegedly robbing and murdering an elderly woman at a nearby hotel in his hometown Jacksonville, Florida.…
American Poet, Ronald Johnson, once said: “It’s not about whether you are innocent or guilty. It’s about whether or not you can prove you’re innocent. If you can’t prove you’re innocent, then you’re considered guilty. It’s been flipped: Now it’s guilty until proven innocent.” This is particularly true for two individuals as these individuals were unable to prove their innocence so they had to stay in prison until they were proven innocent.…