Address The Following In 56 Pages: Describe The Exclusionary

Address The Following In 56 Pagesdescribe The Exclusionary Rule And

Describe the Exclusionary Rule and what it is meant to protect the citizens of this country from. What are the benefits of the Exclusionary Rule? Explain. Identify at least 2 methods of demonstrative evidence that would explain the concept of best evidence. You may use scenarios to describe the theory of best evidence. Explain to the newly appointed investigators the absolute adherence to avoiding any evidentiary issue that would result in a Fruit of the Poisonous Tree violation. Explain the ramifications and results of such a violation. Use at least 2 scenarios to demonstrate this issue. Explain to the new investigators the idea behind the court's displeasure with issues like the Christian Burial Speech. What might it mean in the long run to a serious case just as it did with Brewer v. Williams? Explain the types of behavior that may result in the application of the Shocking the Conscience of the Court test. Provide at least 1 scenario as demonstrative instruction. Provide instruction that coercion is a clear violation of the Constitution. What areas are violated, and what types of behavior are considered coercion? What are the liabilities of the Exclusionary Rule? Explain. What types of errors can occur? Explain What ramifications can result from these errors? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

The Exclusionary Rule is a fundamental principle in United States criminal law designed to uphold citizens' constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures. Rooted in the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and invasions of privacy, the rule disallows evidence obtained in violation of an individual's constitutional rights from being admissible in a court of law. Its primary purpose is to deter law enforcement officials from conducting illegal searches and to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusion, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and upholding individual liberties (People v. Turner, 2017).

The benefits of the Exclusionary Rule extend beyond just protecting individual rights; they also promote law enforcement accountability and uphold the rule of law. By establishing that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court, the rule discourages unlawful police conduct, ensuring that officers adhere strictly to constitutional procedures. This deterrence helps preserve the balance of power between the state and its citizens, fostering public trust in the justice system. Moreover, the rule reinforces the integrity of criminal investigations by emphasizing adherence to legal standards, ultimately contributing to more just outcomes (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).

To illustrate the concept of best evidence, demonstrative evidence plays a crucial role. Two common methods include architectural models and photographic evidence. For example, an architectural model of a crime scene helps to visually demonstrate spatial relationships and specific locations of evidence within the scene, making it easier for jurors to understand the context. Similarly, photographs and videos serve as powerful demonstrative tools to reenact or depict scenes accurately. The theory of best evidence suggests that the original or most direct form of evidence is preferred to corroborate facts reliably. For instance, a video recording of a theft provides more compelling proof than a secondhand testimony about the event, aligning with the principle of presenting the best evidence available (People v. O.J. Simpson, 1995).

Newly appointed investigators must understand the critical importance of adhering strictly to evidentiary procedures to avoid violations such as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. This legal principle prevents the use of evidence derived from an initial unlawful search or seizure. For example, if officers unlawfully search a suspect's vehicle and find contraband, any subsequent evidence obtained from that contraband—like a confession—may also be inadmissible. Failure to follow proper procedures not only jeopardizes cases but also undermines constitutional protections. Scenarios illustrating this include conducting searches without warrants or probable cause, which can lead to suppression of evidence and case failure. Violating this rule can result in the dismissal of charges, eroding public trust and the credibility of law enforcement (Wong Sun v. United States, 1963; United States v. Leon, 1984).

The court’s displeasure with issues such as the Christian Burial Speech stems from concerns over fairness, procedure, and the violation of constitutional rights. In the case of Brewer v. Williams (1977), also known as the "Christian Burial Speech" case, the defendant's confession was tainted due to police misconduct—specifically, an investigative technique that violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The long-term implications of such violations threaten the integrity of the judicial process, potentially leading to wrongful convictions or the suppression of crucial evidence. Courts emphasize fairness and adherence to legal standards because they serve as safeguards against abuses and ensure that convictions are based on admissible, reliable evidence.

The 'Shocking the Conscience of the Court' test is applied when assessing prosecutorial or law enforcement conduct that is so egregious or oppressive that it violates fundamental notions of justice. Behavior that demonstrates extreme coercion or brutality and causes the court to question the integrity of the proceedings may trigger this test. An illustrative scenario involves extrajudicial confessions obtained through physical abuse or threats, where the court finds such conduct morally repugnant and incompatible with fundamental fairness. These cases often involve acts that shock the conscience, such as torture or severe intimidation, and can lead to the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of charges (Rochin v. California, 1952).

Coercion is a clear violation of constitutional protections, particularly under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Coercive tactics, including physical violence, threats, psychological pressure, or deprivation of legal rights, undermine the defendant's autonomy and due process rights. Such behavior contaminates the integrity of confessions, statements, and other evidence, rendering them inadmissible. Areas of violation include the right against self-incrimination and the right to legal counsel. Recognizing coercion involves understanding these tactics and preventing law enforcement from engaging in such conduct, as it directly compromises the fairness of the criminal justice process (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966).

The liabilities of the Exclusionary Rule are significant, primarily because they can result in the suppression of critical evidence, which may weaken or entirely dismantle prosecution cases. Errors that can occur include procedural mistakes, improper searches, and violations of constitutional rights. When such errors happen, courts may exclude evidence, leading to dismissals or reductions in charges. For example, if a search warrant is improperly issued or executed, all evidence derived from that search must be excluded, possibly resulting in the case's collapse. These errors also deter law enforcement from improper conduct but can hinder the pursuit of justice if they prevent the use of legitimate evidence (Nix v. Williams, 1984).

Ramifications of these errors include not only the potential failure to convict guilty defendants but also the erosion of law enforcement’s authority and public confidence. Moreover, wrongful suppressions may result in the release of dangerous offenders or the inability to hold perpetrators accountable, affecting community safety. It underscores the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures and procedural safeguards. Proper training and awareness by investigators are essential to minimizing such errors, ensuring that lawful evidence is gathered correctly and preserved for trial (Herring v. United States, 2009).

References

• People v. Turner, 2017.
• Mapp v. Ohio, 1961.
• People v. O.J. Simpson, 1995.
• Wong Sun v. United States, 1963.
• United States v. Leon, 1984.
• Brewer v. Williams, 1977.
• Rochin v. California, 1952.
• Miranda v. Arizona, 1966.
• Nix v. Williams, 1984.
• Herring v. United States, 2009.