There are many definitions for the exclusionary rule, but to make it simple, I would say this rule was derived from the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments of the United States. Many cases before this rule did not grant the accused the many perks the exclusionary rule offers the people of the united states now. As such many accused ended up being punished under very brutal and strict regulations. And also went through vigorous processes during the investigation process. Wikipedia defines the exclusionary rule as the legal principle in the United States derived from its constitutional law, which states that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes not used or accepted for use in court
…show more content…
One of the advantages of the Exclusionary rule was intended to dissuade police from wrongdoing. The exclusionary rule empowers courts to prohibit implicating proof to be presented at trial until it has been confirmed through the proper routes that the law enforcement agencies obtained it the right way. The exclusionary rule on the other hand becomes a big disadvantage to the police. As a police or a detective, you have to do more and that can reduce your speed in terms of getting all your facts and evidence together for trial. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to eliminate evidence or not being used against them if they think it does not apply to their particular case. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to suppress evidence if they do not believe it applies in the particular case being held in court against them. The individual has the chance to appeal the case if that evidence that he/she requested to be thrown out at pre-trial is used to convict them (Lombardo, 2015). In the event that the accused is granted an appeal, nonetheless, the supreme court has decided that double jeopardy does not bar retrial of the accused because the courts mistake was not geared towards guilt or innocence. Lackhart versus Nelson is one good landmark decision. The prosecution will have a very tough time convicting the accused in the appeal, for the fact that the exclusionary …show more content…
There are many people who are looking to get rid of the rule within the courtrooms because of the constant question of whether it is constitutional or not. It can be expensive for prosecutors and lawyers to gather a considerable amount of proof in the event that some of it is taken away as a result of the exclusionary rule This can delay the process of trials, where some of them take a year or longer to determine who is guilty. The defendant can use the exclusionary rule to their benefit as a way of helping their case. Even if the evidence is against them and would otherwise prove that they are guilty, if it has been obtained in an illegal way, it is dismissed (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012). “A companion to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine” (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012, p. 219). To accommodate the changes in our daily lives, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Under these exceptions, the supreme court will admit some evidence that were still obtained under illegal means. According to Adler, Mueller, & Laufer (2012), “most notable is the good faith exception- where police officers acted in good faith on what they believe to be
One of the advantages of the Exclusionary rule was intended to dissuade police from wrongdoing. The exclusionary rule empowers courts to prohibit implicating proof to be presented at trial until it has been confirmed through the proper routes that the law enforcement agencies obtained it the right way. The exclusionary rule on the other hand becomes a big disadvantage to the police. As a police or a detective, you have to do more and that can reduce your speed in terms of getting all your facts and evidence together for trial. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to eliminate evidence or not being used against them if they think it does not apply to their particular case. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to suppress evidence if they do not believe it applies in the particular case being held in court against them. The individual has the chance to appeal the case if that evidence that he/she requested to be thrown out at pre-trial is used to convict them (Lombardo, 2015). In the event that the accused is granted an appeal, nonetheless, the supreme court has decided that double jeopardy does not bar retrial of the accused because the courts mistake was not geared towards guilt or innocence. Lackhart versus Nelson is one good landmark decision. The prosecution will have a very tough time convicting the accused in the appeal, for the fact that the exclusionary …show more content…
There are many people who are looking to get rid of the rule within the courtrooms because of the constant question of whether it is constitutional or not. It can be expensive for prosecutors and lawyers to gather a considerable amount of proof in the event that some of it is taken away as a result of the exclusionary rule This can delay the process of trials, where some of them take a year or longer to determine who is guilty. The defendant can use the exclusionary rule to their benefit as a way of helping their case. Even if the evidence is against them and would otherwise prove that they are guilty, if it has been obtained in an illegal way, it is dismissed (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012). “A companion to the exclusionary rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine” (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2012, p. 219). To accommodate the changes in our daily lives, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Under these exceptions, the supreme court will admit some evidence that were still obtained under illegal means. According to Adler, Mueller, & Laufer (2012), “most notable is the good faith exception- where police officers acted in good faith on what they believe to be