Summary: The Importance Of Evidence In Court Cases

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Also, there must be a legal basis for the appeal such as alleged material error in the trial, despite not because the losing party did not agree with the verdict. If the defendant was convicted through the plea bargain then the right of appealing is demolished. Any convicted offenders are able to appeal their case based on the matter of law. When there is an appeal, the court reviews the case looking at the previous proceedings in the lower courts and will not consider new evidence. The appellate courts look at the record and the written briefs filed by the defendant and the prosecutor of the appeal.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If defendants were forced to testify they wouldn’t only have access to answering the questions from the defense attorney, possibly explaining the evidence against them, but they’d also be vulnerable to the cross-examination of the prosecution. The prosecution is supposedly supposed to uphold justice, meaning if they don’t have a strong enough case to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, then they should drop the charges. However, we can imagine that that rarely happens, even if the defendant is innocent. Therefore, if an innocent defendant is being cross examined, the prosecution should be convinced of their guilt, otherwise, they should have dropped the charges. It’s also important to note that an overwhelming majority, almost two-thirds, of those convicted of crimes haven’t graduated high school.…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Double Jeopardy, in the Fifth Amendment, claims that one cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Once a trial has ended the government cannot choose to include new evidence and put a person on trial again. The right of Double Jeopardy is extremely important because it hinders the government from having the power to continuously try a person for the same crime. To be put on trial multiple times can get expensive, therefore it would make the most sense to only put a person on trial once. Although people should be tried if they have sincerely done something wrong, Double Jeopardy protects the defendants from having to constantly fear that they will be imprisoned.…

    • 898 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, Kinsley lost the court case because he could not prove the “subjective” intent of the officers for intentionally malicious purposes, yet instead, he argued for the “objective” context of his confinement. IN the final outcome of the case, the Supreme Court did justify Kingsley’s argument about the objective context of suspects in custody through Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520 (1979), which allows for a new standard of confinement rights as a precedent for future abuses by police officers of suspects in jail. The use of “objective standard” in police brutality would now be associated with the Bell v. Wolfish case as a new precedent for future allegations: “We conclude with respect to that question that the relevant standard is objective, not subjective” (Kingsley v. Hendrickson et al , 2015, p.5). Certainly, Kingsley lost the court case, but the Supreme…

    • 1354 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Main Juror Jury Functions

    • 1854 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The second principles, on the other hand, requires Jurors to use the law properly when it comes to capital punishment, for if a Juror is telling the judge in Voir Dire that he or she will not convict the defendant if he or she is going to trial for the death penalty, they will not be allow to join the Juror pool (Gardner and Anderson, 2010). No matter what religion the potential Juror is, everyone deserves justice. If, in the eyes of the law, the prosecution demonstrated enough evidence to convict and put someone to death, than it should be done accordingly. The third principle that will exclude a person from become a Jury in a capital case is the mental state of the person, for if the individual has amnesia or dementia, nine times out of ten, the person will be excused from the trial. The court officials need the proper person to remember all the testimonies and evidence obtained so a fair verdict could be given (Gardner and Anderson, 2010).…

    • 1854 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Introduction Often the main evidence relevant to the mens rea is the defendant 's state of mind, which only can be obtained by the police interrogation. Nonetheless, corruption among the police officers may not be avoided in such circumstances. In the well – known case of the ' 'Cardiff Three ' ' , the Court of Appeal quashed their conviction as they were proven to be innocent. It was the problematic interrogation that made Stephen Miller confess a crime which he and the other members did not commit. Lord Taylor suggests that Stephen ' 'Miller was bullied and hectored...Short of physical violence, it is hard to conceive of a more hostile and intimidating approach by officers to a suspect. '…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Other than being impartial, the judicial proceedings should be free of influence by any outside party. The rulings that a court makes should have a firm foundation on the evidence presented in court (Shatreet, 2015). It is for this reason that accepting payments or gifts with the objective of influencing the ruling of a court is both unlawful and unethical. For example, a judge who accepts payments for sending a certain amount of teenagers to a juvenile detention facility is acting unlawfully. Such an act can result in severe punishment for both the judge and the parties offering the…

    • 1159 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 854 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The police are obliged to inform the suspect of his or her right to an attorney and allow for (or, if necessary, provide for) a defendant 's attorney who can accompany him during interrogations as well as his or her right to remain silent. Any type of confession obtained without warnings against self-incrimination and/or without legal counsel present became inadmissible in court of law. With the instatement of the Miranda Rights a confession police obtained from a suspect in custody would not be admissible in court unless that suspect had been read his or her rights. Due to this part of the clause many criminals have been set free due to technicalities of the law. It is a careful balance “designed to fully protect both the defendants ' and society 's…

    • 1901 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jacobson arguing that the court had abused its discretionary powers when it did not allow Jacobson’s attorney’s to poll the jury, and instead assumed that the jurors had abided by the restrictions placed on them to avoid news reports. The due process clause guarantees everyone the right to a trial by an impartial jury, and this was denied to Sandra L. Jacobson when public broadcasting was clearly impartial towards the prosecution, and the jurors had the means to watch said report, which would render them biased. Legally, if there is the possibility that jurors may have been exposed to material that is prejudicial, then an appellate court should be able to gauge the exposure and determine the prejudice of the jury. The trial court was able to determine that unfair prejudice from this broadcasting station, including information that would be inadmissible in trial and would therefore contaminate the jury. Several cases have shown that warnings alone do not neutralize the potential for jury contamination, so a trial court should not rely solely on the warnings it gives jurors.…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays