Facts About The Best Evidence Rule

Forensic science evidence admissibility is when the forensic evidence can be used in the courtroom against a person. Any forensic science evidence that is admissible will be used in courtroom against that defendant. All types of evidence are shown to a judge or a jury to me a case against a suspect. Evidence that can be considered admissible, is any document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a court of law. There are four types of evidence. The four types of evidence are demonstrative, documentary, real, and testimonial evidence. An example of demonstrative evidence is

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. the United States, to revise the Fourth Amendment “unreasonable searches and seizures,” to cover electronic wiretaps. (Iannacci, 2015) Charles Katz a handicap basketball player conducting illegal gambling bets using three outside telephone booth (pay phones) nearby his residence to place and receive bets from gamblers. The FBI caught onto Katz’s operation, so they decided to bug the telephone booths pending investigation using the wiretaps. Katz was later detained for recorded conversations of conducting an organized illegal gambling operation. Katz defense was that the FBI surveillance on the phone booths was unconstitutional. Katz argued that his Fourth Amendment had been violated because the phone booth was made of glass, leaving him visible to the outside world with an uninvited ear should be protected under the Fourth Amendment because it’s a way of private communication. However, the clause that applies to all

In order for evidence to be properly authenticated, “the trial judge must determine that there is proof from which a reasonable juror could find that the evidence is what the proponent claims it to be.” Sublet v. State, 442 Md. 632, 638 (2015). Indeed, the purpose of Md. Rule 5-901 is to ensure that the evidence’s proponent has satisfied a burden of production sufficient to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude the evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. The standard for authenticity, however, is

Supreme court rules federal investigators can wiretap into suspects phones legally, and use those conversations as evidence.

Government Wiretapping is when the government gets access without court consent is used completely illegally Every day, Hundreds of millions of people chat exchange text messages and send picture through social sites like Facebook and you don't know whether or not the government is watching you and see everything you send out they are just invading your privacy. While it may help catch criminals (terrorist drug dealers etc) it is being used to spy on millions of people ILLEGALLY there have even been some cases of government officials choosing to spy on people they know even if they know they're innocent. Why should the government be allowed to wiretap without court consent? They are looking at innocent people's information and some cases have

Forensic evidence has been shown to be reliable due to many factors of evidence such as DNA, blood, fingerprints, etc.; however, many cases have shown that

Background: I was talking to my friend Jess. We were talking about the weather. I was saying it was too hot and she agreed with me. Jess then asked “Do you feel bad for the animals since they have fur and it makes it harder for them to cool down?”

Evidence integrity demonstrates that evidence has been handled correctly, honestly and responsibly. Therefore, evidence integrity is the protection of potential evidence from the perception of evidence being lost, substituted, contaminated, deteriorated or tempered with to ensure its prevented from being introduced into the area in question (Sutton et al.

In the case Katz V. the United States in 1967, Katz was convicted under an indictment charging him under 18 U.S code 1084, which is conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law (US Couts). At his trial, Katz sought out to exclude any evidence found against him, connected to the wire taps the police officer had placed on the phone booth he used to make the calls. Katz argued that the warrant-less wiretapping of a public phone booth was an unreasonable search of a “constitutionally protected area” in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was not “constitutionally protected area” therefore they were able to place the wiretap with no issue (US Courts). The court ruled that it was the duty of the officer to get a warrant in any instance in which a persons may be engaging in conduct that they wish to keep secret from the public, even if done in a public place. The court also held that the absence of the search warrant, constituted the wiretaps to be unconstitutional in this case (US Courts).

The two forms are preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance is mostly used in civil court, whereas proof beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal court. In civil court, the plaintiff must provide factual evidence regarding why he or she is suing the defendant. In a criminal case, a higher standard of evidence is required, which is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In most criminal cases the prosecutor must attempt to persuade that the defendant, is, in fact, guilty of the charges brought against them. In criminal cases, the evidence must be circumstantial and adequate enough to decide whether the person is guilty. Which is where the term proof beyond a reasonable doubt derives from. It's another way of saying are you certain, is the proof enough for you to say okay, I have no doubt in my mind that this person is

Good Faith is the last exception. In this case, the magistrate issues a seizure warrant for acquiring evidence. However, this may not be in sync with the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring the police from any misconduct and also the evidence suppression may not occur. The limitation of this exception is that, if the defense can convince the judge that the officer was reckless in seizing the evidence, then the good faith will be nullified.

In the 1928, case of Olmstead v. United States the issue of whether of wiretapping constituted a “search” for purpose of the Fourth Amendment was interpreted. Olmstead was convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act based on evidence obtained by tapping his telephone line from a junction box located on the public street (Kanovitz, 2010, p.267). According to the text,

The idea of law and order in this country isn’t a new one and, in fact, has taken a very long time to get to the point it is today. But it isn’t done changing or improving because with every new advancement and technology law must adapt to encompass these new gray areas and make them clear in the court of law. An example of a few large milestones in United States’ law that reflect such adaptability are the Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules for Civil Procedure; and the Sedona Conference. Each of these milestones have made clear many issues and gray areas in the law. Issues in evidence collection and presenting as well as digital evidence collection are a few of the many subjects covered in these federal rules.

The rules of evidence are prescribed by Congress and can be found in Title 28 of the