During any criminal proceeding, the law can either help win the case or lose the case. Every case is unique, whether it is a murder case or a simple assault case. This is why clients need skilled, knowledgeable attorney 's so that they can receive fair trials without police and investigators introducing evidence which may be illegally seized during an arrest. The judge has the ultimate decision whether evidence should be excluded or not, so bringing forth the Constitutional Rights of one 's client is pertinent.
Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their case on why the evidence should not be allowed to be presented at trial. The judge agreed to an Evidentiary Hearing but our argument will quickly be under the exclusionary rule because the police knowingly violated the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights.
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" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence …show more content…
At this point, a pretrial motion to dismiss without prejudice is fair due to the misconduct of police and the violation of the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. "In other areas of constitutional law and criminal procedure, the Court now routinely engages in textual interpretation informed by history, yet the debate over the exclusionary rule still seems to lack any foothold in conventional constitutional interpretation" (Re, pg. 5). There should be no interpretation whether or not the client 's rights were violated due to the facts in the case that the police blatantly without regard to the U.S. Constitution and showed true police
Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their case on why the evidence should not be allowed to be presented at trial. The judge agreed to an Evidentiary Hearing but our argument will quickly be under the exclusionary rule because the police knowingly violated the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights.
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" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence …show more content…
At this point, a pretrial motion to dismiss without prejudice is fair due to the misconduct of police and the violation of the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. "In other areas of constitutional law and criminal procedure, the Court now routinely engages in textual interpretation informed by history, yet the debate over the exclusionary rule still seems to lack any foothold in conventional constitutional interpretation" (Re, pg. 5). There should be no interpretation whether or not the client 's rights were violated due to the facts in the case that the police blatantly without regard to the U.S. Constitution and showed true police