Crime Evidence

Read Complete Research Material


Crime evidence

Crime evidence

A criminal defendant's claim of unreasonable search and seizure is usually heard in a suppression hearing before the presiding trial judge. This hearing is undertaken before test to work out what clues will be stifled, or omitted, from trial. When a referee deems a seek awkward, he or she often concerns the Exclusionary Rule (Lawrence, 2007).

For the whole nineteenth 100 years, a Fourth Amendment violation had little consequence. Evidence grabbed by regulation enforcement from a warrantless or else awkward seek was admissible at test if the referee discovered it reliable. This made the Fourth Amendment vitally meaningless to lawless individual defendants. But in 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a way to enforce the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), a government agency undertook a warrantless seek for clues of wagering at the dwelling of Fremont Weeks. The clues grabbed in the seek was utilized at test, and Weeks was convicted. On apply, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment banned the use of clues protected through a warrantless seek and seizure. Weeks's conviction was turned around and therefore was born the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary direct is a judicially conceived remedy utilized to discourage Police Misconduct in getting evidence. Under the exclusionary direct, a referee may omit incriminating clues from a lawless individual test if there was policeman misconduct in getting the evidence. Without the clues, the prosecutor may misplace the case or fall the allegations for need of proof. This direct presents some substantive defense contrary to illicit seek and seizure.

The exclusionary direct was constitutionally needed only in government court until MAPP V. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961). In Mapp, the Court held that ...
Related Ads