Rules of evidence

the “knock-and-announce” rule does not require the courts to suppress any evidence found in a search when officers were pursuant to a valid warrant. Issue Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. Hudson’s counsel moved to subdue the evidence from the record because of the violation of Hudson’s Fourth Amendment right when the officers prematurely entered his home. The issue was whether or not a violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule would call for the courts

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE Geoff Moore LSTD503 CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS The Exclusionary Rule In 1763, William Pitt spoke in front of Parliament. In that speech he stated that the King of England cannot enter with all his forces. It can be said that the American colonists went to war, the Revolutionary War, with England to stand up for their rights. One of those rights was the protection from illegal searches and seizures. When the Congress debated on the wording of the Fourth Amendment, they

Criminal Evidence Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Criminal Evidence Hearsay is not confined to oral statements or writings. Nonverbal conduct that is the equivalent of a verbal statement can be hearsay. All courts agree that conduct intended as a substitute for words is within the hearsay prohibition when offered to prove the truth of the intended assertion. Assertive conduct of this type would include physical gestures such as sign language, affirmative nods

The Exclusionary Rule is defined as using evidence gathered which is in violation of the Constitution. Usually evidence is gathered illegally through seizure and which violates the Fourth Amendment. One of the key cases for this would be the Mapp V Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 1961 (Law, "Exclusionary Rule"). This case is landmark case for the exclusionary rule being used. Moreover, as for evidence being excluded from a trial I think that there are necessary measures as to what should be used and what shouldn’t

Introduction In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead

“reanalysis” of previously published epidemiological (human statistical) studies. In neither essence the submitted documents were never published nor peer reviewed articles demonstrated a link between Bendectin and birth defects. Merrell Dow had introduced evidence that no epidemiological study ever performed had concluded that the use of Bendectin by pregnant women significantly correlated with the incidence of birth defects in those women’s children (Atikian, 1994 p.1516).

Unit 3 Assignment: Pre-Trial Proceedings 1. Apply the Exclusionary rule to each of these three items of evidence and state whether or not the item should be excluded from evidence based on the Exclusionary Rule. If you selected any that WOULD be excluded, please explain why. I do not feel like any of the evidence that was recovered should be excluded based on the Exclusionary Rule. The cocaine was seen in plain view when the officer went into the home, who was given consent to come in by the wife

governed by Maryland Rule 2-519 which provides: (a) Generally. A party may move for judgment on any or all of the issues in any action at the close of the evidence offered by an opposing party, and in a jury trial at the close of all the evidence. The moving party shall state with particularity all the reasons why the motion should be granted. No objection to the motion for judgment shall be necessary. A party does not waive the right to make the motion by introducing evidence during the presentation

the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who

scientific expert testimony in the US; the Fry Standard, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Duabert Starndard (1). The Fry standard is the oldest being established in the case of Fry v. United States, 1923. It sets the standard as that evidence may be presented if it has been “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs” (1) The second oldest is the Federal Rules of Evidence, 1975, which is made up of four points but can be summarized as such