Exclusionary Rule, Its Benefits and Errors

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Public Speaking
Exclusionary Rule and Its Benefits
Concept of Best Evidence
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Violation and Its Results
Christian Burial Speech
Shocking the Conscience of the Court Test
Coercion as the Violation of the Constitution
Liabilities and Errors of the Exclusionary Rule
Conclusion
References

Public Speaking

A special procedure of legal proceedings is the topic that has significance in relation to modern jurisprudence and its branches. In particular, the exclusionary rule, as the aspect of the collection of evidence, is the nuance that law representatives encounter during criminal investigation stages. In order to avoid mistakes and illegal actions, it is essential to take into account the peculiarities of this principle and the factors that it entails, such as constitutional protection or the presumption of innocence.

This paper aims to describe the phenomenon of the exclusionary rule, its liabilities, and errors, as well as related concepts associated with the collection of evidence. As a substantiation base, relevant academic sources will be involved as resources on criminal psychology and jurisprudence. Circumstances providing for exemption from liability before the court imply following the precise principles of the existing legal framework, in particular, the Constitution, and their violation is fraught with serious consequences for responsible persons.

Exclusionary Rule and Its Benefits

The defense in a criminal case at the stage of its investigation and preliminary hearing cannot always achieve the recognition of illegally obtained evidence as inadmissible and exclude it from the list of evidence. Given such a nuance, this line is to be continued at the trial stage. Friehe and Miceli (2018) give an example of the actions of the police and argue that any evidence obtained without a special warrant will be considered invalid and will not be an additional prosecution element.

This principle is called the exclusionary rule and is a significant aspect of the judicial system. Its main advantage lies in the fact that citizens can feel secure from biased actions by law enforcement agencies and other authoritative boards. In addition, as Friehe and Miceli (2018) note, the exclusionary rule provides an opportunity “to protect the privacy rights of citizens” (p. 757). Therefore, this provision has an important status in the modern legislative field.

Concept of Best Evidence

The concept of evidence is one of the most important in jurisprudence since the factor of culpability is determined by justification. The methods used for this purpose may differ, and the best of them are those that clearly demonstrate specific convictions or acquittals. Jones and Kovera (2015) provide an example of visual aids, for instance, video fragments, as valuable elements in legal proceedings. The use of such evidence allows excluding the wrong interpretation of cases and making an objective verdict.

Another method that relates to demonstrative evidence is to bring witnesses to testify. This technique contributes to appealing to the facts received from disinterested persons to draw appropriate conclusions. As a result, bias is excluded as an unacceptable factor in sentencing. Thus, the concept of the best evidence involves utilizing those methods and techniques that increase the objectivity of the assessment of a particular court case.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Violation and Its Results

The collection of evidence is an essential step in any investigation, and in order to carry out this process correctly, it is crucial to take into account the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. According to Merin (2015), this concept is a strong stopping factor for the illegal actions of the police and the prosecutors when issues relate to the collection of evidence and its inclusion in a specific case.

If law enforcement officers obtain certain evidence illegally, for instance, on personal initiative, it cannot be counted as suitable for a trial. Merin (2015) also mentions the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, which confirms the illegitimacy of the search or arrest without due reason. The police may detain a suspect, but if errors are witnessed in this process, officers will have to admit they were wrong and release the accused. Therefore, it is important to take into account the doctrine in question and monitor the compliance with all the conventions of work, for instance, the receipt of appropriate warrants. Otherwise, even objective pieces of evidence may not have legal weight if an accused party proves the illegality of seizure.

Christian Burial Speech

Collecting evidence, as the factor influencing the outcomes of legal proceedings, is the procedure that requires validity and the strict observance of all necessary conventions. The issue of the Christian Burial Speech discussed in the case of Brewer v. Williams (1977) is an example of how difficult a hearing may be if it the specifics of obtaining valuable data are not followed. The situation when a suspect testifies without the presence of a lawyer (even voluntarily) is controversial in a legislative context since the actions of police officers may be interpreted as pressure.

In the long run, such evidence may be invalidated, despite the objectivity and transparency of a particular case. For the court, it is not enough to obtain an oral statement from responsible persons, in particular, if prior conditions were negotiated, for instance, the mandatory presence of a lawyer. Therefore, the personal initiative of law enforcement officers may have undesirable consequences if the right of suspects to an objective and legitimate testimony collection is valid.

Shocking the Conscience of the Court Test

The activity of officials involved in the work with the regulatory framework has clearly defined rights and obligations. In case a representative of the law performs actions contrary to his or her authority, the members of the judicial commission are entitled to resort to the Shocking the Conscience of the Court test. According to Janus (2018), this procedure provides for the assessment of an official’s actions if they are outside the acceptable limits of decency.

As an example, it is possible to bring compulsory detention in custody for no apparent reason, the deprivation of a person’s property, and other illegal actions. If a representative of the law exceeds his or her authority deliberately, the members of the trial analyze such behavior, largely relying on subjective evaluation (Janus, 2018). Such internal investigations hurt the reputation of official boards significantly. Therefore, adherence to permissible powers is an important part of working in the judicial system.

Coercion as the Violation of the Constitution

The violation of the Constitution as the main law of the country causes a big resonance in case illegal actions are committed not by ordinary state citizens but the representatives of the authorities. One of the forms of such a problem, which may arise for various reasons, is coercion. The excess of official authority in order to obtain a certain benefit is unacceptable in any legal state. As Trujillo (2019) notes, the constitutional system builds a clear hierarchical order where roles and responsibilities are defined. If individual participants in this pyramid use their capabilities for personal gain, for instance, by forcing others to particular actions, this is a direct violation.

An example of such a situation is the forcible conviction of a suspect to acknowledge a crime. However, not only the criminal system may be affected but also other areas, for instance, economic or administrative. In general, any type of behavior when officials use their power to force a person to take concrete actions is coercion – threats, psychological pressure, and other forms.

Liabilities and Errors of the Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a mandatory and significant aspect of the judicial system. According to Hardiman and Gailey (2019), the liabilities of this norm imply control over the collection of evidence on charges of committing an offense, including the assessment of responsible persons’ both legal and professional motives. In other words, the legitimacy of officials’ behavior is subject to compulsory evaluation.

At the same time, as the authors argue, this principle may be associated with some errors and omissions (Hardiman & Gailey, 2019). In particular, Hardiman and Gailey (2019) provide some examples of cases with excessive force and note that the exclusionary rule “fails to address the underlying police misconduct and precludes the admission of reliable evidence” (p. 1135). The ramifications of these mistakes consist in the absence of an appropriate procedure for punishing authorized persons and not identifying those factors that entail a specific violation.

Conclusion

The exclusionary rule as a crucial component of the judicial and legal system ensures compliance with the legal principles of evidence collection, and the non-observance of these conditions is a direct violation of the Constitution. On the example of the aforementioned concepts and rationales, one can note that this rule is a valuable aspect of a criminal investigation and affects various stakeholders. Various types of officials’ behavior, including coercion, are unacceptable in accordance with the state law. However, despite the clearly defined liabilities of the exclusionary rule, some errors may occur, which, in turn, prevent the legitimate assessment of responsible persons’ actions.

References

Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).

Friehe, T., & Miceli, T. J. (2018). On the role of the exclusionary rule for optimal law enforcement effort. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 20(5), 757-767. Web.

Hardiman, T. M., & Gailey, L. (2019). Is the exclusionary rule a prohibition-era relic? Michigan Law Review, 117(6), 1135-1152.

Janus, E. S. (2018). Beyond strict scrutiny: Forbidden purpose and the “Civil commitment” power. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 345-378. Web.

Jones, A. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2015). A demonstrative helps opposing expert testimony sensitize jurors to the validity of scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(5), 401-422. Web.

Merin, Y. (2015). Lost between the fruits and the tree: In search of a coherent theoretical model for the exclusion of derivative evidence. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 273-329. Web.

Trujillo, I. (2019). Coercion and non-state law. Società e Diritti, 1(1), 11-30.

Click Here To Order Now!