Polygraph Usage

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

This is not an easy paragraph to satisfy. The showing that must be made before the motion will be granted under this provision is that the evidence is not only “newly-discovered”, but that it is evidence of such quality that it will “probably”, not merely “possibly”, change the result in the case. And the movant should also show why, with reasonable diligence, the evidence could not have been discovered in time for the trial, or at least in time to move for a new trial under CPLR 4404. (The time for the post-trial motion is tight. See CPLR 4405 and the Commentary on it.)

The attorney for the Smith’s will likely to argue as well the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree which holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence. (Cornell University Law School,

In Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), the Supreme Court elaborated on the standards to use in determining the procedure for a motion to suppress due to suggestive pre-trial identification. The Court held that “reliability is the linchpin” in determining the admissibility of identification testimony, and applied the “totality of the circumstances” standard of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967).

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

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

There has been considerable interest and study in the accuracy or inaccuracy of the use of eyewitness testimonies in the current criminal justice system. Results collated by several studies add to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. Currently, high emphasis is being placed on reviewing and reconsidering eyewitness accounts (Leinfelt, 2004). In particular, recent DNA exoneration cases have substantiated the warnings of eyewitness identification researchers by showing that mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of innocent people (Wells & Olson, 2003). In this essay, the use of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system will be explored, with a particular focus on the impreciseness of this practice.

HOLDING: The court actually abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test two-pronged test and held that When a court is making a decision to issue a search warrant, the question as to weather a person is “credibility/reliable” and where their “basis of knowledge” may have come from are to be used as guides when considering the “totality of the circumstances”and are and not requirements in every

The admissibility of expert testimony from the past to the present, The Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 702 (1975) the revision of Rule 702 (2000) and (2010), Frye v United States (1923), Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., v Carmichael (1999).

Evidence Code Section 1102(b) specifically provides that prosecutors can introduce character evidence to rebut the good character evidence presented by the

made a mistake on the officer sworn statement (DS-367) (Exhibit 1) and the officer completed the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) 6 days after the arrest, which does not fall within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, Section 1280 of the Evidence Code. In addition, officer signed the second page of the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) after 6 days of the arrest, therefore, the DS-367 is altered. In addition, the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) and the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) are not credible, not trustworthy and not admissible. Officer notes are destroyed after he completed his report and memory of the officer is questionable.. Counsel cited the Glatman, MacDonald, Manny cases to support his

The Exclusionary Rule has been around since the early 1900s, and it is a rule that some defendants who are involved in a felonious case tend to use as a remedy for unlawful searches that has a habit of violating their Fourth Amendment rights. This rule also dictates that any evidence that was unlawfully obtained should be ruled out as evidence under our Fourth Amendment, and the Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 is one of these cases that discusses this rule and evidences being excluded. Now, before this rule was created, “any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant, and how the evidence was seized was not considered an important issue” (“Exclusionary Rule”, n.d., para. 4).

The question of Wheather Test Is applied equally to provide a fair Trial for the defendant and relevant in making the accused's 922(g)(1) status more probable than it would have been without the name evidence, and (2) the relevance, under Rule 401, of the name evidence is not affected by the availability of alternative proofs of the prior-conviction element, such as an admission by the accused; thus, if such name evidence is to be held inadmissible in the presence of other evidence, then the exclusion must rest not on the ground that the other evidence has rendered the name evidence "irrelevant," but on the character of the name evidence as unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or the like, its relevance notwithstanding. Were some sections of a document are relevant within the meaning of Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence Federal, and other sections of the

In Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 96 (1962), however, the Court of Appeals extended the 1888 rule to apply to a witness in any “pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and

The polygraph test is one of the most controversial criminal investigative techniques of all-time. From the initial years of the invention to today, there is not a consensus about the investigative tool. That is why there are many people for and against the administration of polygraph tests. Therefore, in order to develop a clear picture of the polygraph test the history of the test must be established. Although, there are many sources that have well documented concerns about the invention, the polygraph test is still around after almost 80 years.