Federal Rules of Evidence

Branch is one of three equal branches of the United States government. Article III of the American Constitution invests federal judiciary power within the Supreme Court. The extent of the power of that has been debated all through U.S. History. Along with the federal judicial system, all 50 states have a judiciary which interprets individual state laws and on occasion it interprets federal laws too. The judicial system administers justice and constitutes the judicial branch of the government. Justice

potential security breach of their medical system. As the lead forensics investigator for XYZ, Inc., I have established a work plan that incorporates requirements set forth by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plan Overview • Get supervisor’s approval that evidence was collected properly • Document time, date, location of evidence collection • Secure

Does the Ohio state law of prohibiting obscure material violate the First Amendment? Does evidence obtained with out a search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Exclusionary rule; apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause? When the police suspected that Dollree Mapp had a connection to the recent bombing, they visited her home in Cleveland. After refusing to let the police in, they forced there way into her house with out providing a search warrant. While

requirement, expert witnesses in the relevant field are called upon to assist the fact-finding body interpret and understand evidence or opinion with which such a body is unfamiliar. The current approach to the admissibility of expert evidence within the judicial system of Wales and England is that of laissez-faire (Akers, 2000). Within laissez-faire, a number of experts’ evidence or opinion are admitted in the jury or magistrate court without adequate scrutiny since no clear guideless are applied to

that the police had obtained the evidence through an “unlawful search and seizure”. At Mapp’s trial no search warrant was admitted into evidence, however she was still convicted. The Court cited Wolf vs Colorado, which found that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in criminal prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court (Mapp vs. Ohio). Issues: Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined

The best evidence rule is a rule that applies when someone wants to admit some form of evidence that is a document but the actual original document is not available for admission. Unfortunately, when this happen the party that wants to admit the evidence has to give an acceptable excuse to why the original documents are unavailable or absent. Therefore, the courts has to decide if the excuse is acceptable and allow the party to use their secondary evidence in order to prove their case or that the

broad discretion to deny a motion for severance even when counsel demonstrate that two defendants will present conflicting and irreconcilable defenses. Which of the following statements is correct? Answer: Most states have now adopted liberal rules allowing pretrial discovery in criminal cases. Which of the following is not a component of a pretrial process? Answer: sentencing of the defendant The singling out of an individual for prosecution based on that person’s race of religion is

expression. The issue at hand was whether the unlawfully confiscated materials were protected by the First Amendment and if evidence obtained in the search which violates the Fourth Amendment should be admitted in court as evidence. The verdict of Mapp vs Ohio was six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. After this, the exclusionary rule was put in place, the rules establish that all evidence obtained must be legally

exclusionary rule was established (Hendrie 1). The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. It states that evidence found at a crime scene is not admissible if it was not found under the correct procedures. This means that the government cannot conduct illegal searches of a person or place and use evidence that is found at that time. The government must go through the procedures of obtaining warrants or have probable cause to search an individual or place. The exclusionary rule is used to