Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;
The need for understanding the phenomenon of repressed memories is also very important from a legal standpoint. In recent years there has been numerous cases of people suing their parents or other authority figures for abuse that has been recalled many years after the abuse was said to have occurred. The rulings in these cases have often been controversial considering there is often not enough concrete or collaborative evidence to prove the accused to be guilty or innocent. The judge and jury are often forced to make a ruling that relies heavily on the testimonial of the accuser. This is very contentious considering there is not an accurate and reliable test to determine the validity of the accuser.
Introduction: Cochran et al (2016) provide a case study analysis of the temporal nature of memory in suspect lineups and crimes being investigated by law enforcement. The study involves a longitudinal evaluation of participants that are given evidence of a crime (through slideshows) that allows them to ascertain the criminal act or to choose a suspect in a lineup. At a later time, the participants are given altered information on the crime, which revealed a greatly distorted memory of the crimes that the participants did not remember. This misinformation was an attempt to trick the participants into affirming
RESEARCH PAPER: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE The Exclusionary Rule Fourth Amendment Yaritza Santana 10/2/2014 This paper is strictly focused and based on the true events, Supreme Court cases that led to the exclusionary rule.
which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search
1. The concept of selective incorporation according to We the People, was a “progression by which different securities in the Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1937 the “courts were still unwilling to defend civil freedoms beyond the First Amendment. The first case that established selective
The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons, that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Criminal Procedure/CJA 364 University of Phoenix Exclusionary Rule Evaluation The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and
This was unconstitutional according to the 4th Amendment and that this instance violated individual rights. Judges developed the Exclusionary Rule and hoped it would discourage officers from breaking the law.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection against illegal policing by, barring searches that are “unreasonable” and without the justification of “probable cause.” In relativity, once individuals’ rights have been violated and the evidence is obtained illegally, and trialed at court, The Exclusionary Rule can be applied to assist a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth Amendment. One important corollary to the Exclusionary Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being in admissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded (Wong,1963).
The Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule A Historical Analysis And How It Stand Today April Herald Criminal Justice Abstract From historical analysis, this work highlights key cases that have influenced the evolution of the Exclusionary rule and where it stands today. The purpose of this paper is to inform people of the importance of our constitutional rights, especially the fourth amendment when concerning a criminal prosecution. The exclusionary rule is set in place to ensure justice be served and the accused are treated equally. If you have ever found yourself with a criminal status you should be sure that you were or are treated equal and that you know the law. There has been numerous cases that can be used to
The exclusionary rule covers many different exceptions to what deemed admissible to court with the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The two rules that can be adjusted in the
The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to not allow the use of improperly obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule discourages the government form violating an individual's constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule arose because it is a judge created case law to avoid police or government malpractice. This
During the 1960s, a time in which the Supreme Court attempted to exercise strong policy control over the administration of criminal justice. The court began to make the states apply to more specific requirements of the Constitutional Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court also made the exclusionary rule applicable
Analyze the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was made by the court due to the need that presented itself. The intension was to ensure that the 4th Amendment is kept and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy, and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. Nevertheless, most them do not comprehend how the Exclusionary Rule which ensures this right is guarded. The Exclusionary Rule is intended to refrain the police from misconduct. The 4th amendment right protects every citizen from illegal searches and arrests. When the police violates this 4 amendment right, the evidence they have collected will be avoided in the federal court.