[Name of Student]
[Name of Professor]
[Name of Class]
[Day Month Year]
Exclusion of Evidence in a Trial
Introduction
In criminal proceedings, defendants and prosecutors may present evidence in support of their cases. It is very decisive in the case of the defendant. For example, if in a court of law, the evidence is excluded, then there would not be adequate incidental support to suggest guilt. This will put the defendant behind bars. The “exclusionary rule” impedes the prosecution from presenting evidence which was gathered illegally. This rule becomes applicable when evidence is collected in violation of the rights of the defendant against seizures and unlawful searches. Therefore, if an officer gathers evidence without a proper channel, the evidence would not be admissible at the trial.
The most important factor is admissibility of a piece of evidence in proceedings. It can be excluded in certain circumstance under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and under the common law of Courts. Under section 78, the court can exclude evidence where it has significantly breached the PACE codes of practice. The exclusion will not be ordered where it affects the impartiality of the proceedings. Moreover, under 78, applications to exclude the evidence will be considered by the judge. The application ought to be made before the evidence is presented. The courts, however, constantly interpreting the rules, such as, to what extent the character of evidence matters in hearsay evidence. To exclude hearsay evidence, the court has a general discretion.
In historical perspective, the United States birthplace of the exclusion of evidence. With few exceptions, illegally obtained evidence would be excluded if they are obtained illegally in criminal cases (Debra Osborn). As it is viewed as the only source of individual rights from seizures and irrational searches guaranteed in the fourth amendment of the US constitution. The justification for this amendment was stated in terms of judicial integrity.
Reasons for Exclusion of Evidence in a Trial
In the case of Pembroke Dock, the defendants were accused with consuming and supplying beer while non-permitted hours at a registered club ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"eBNL4uXs","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":360,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/Q5RCXKKJ"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/Q5RCXKKJ"],"itemData":{"id":360,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I","container-title":"The Journal of Criminal Law","page":"48-62","volume":"6","issue":"1","source":"SAGE Journals","DOI":"10.1177/002201834200600105","ISSN":"0022-0183","journalAbbreviation":"The Journal of Criminal Law","language":"en","issued":{"date-parts":[["1942",1,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I”). The only evidence the prosecution was a police constable who assumed that he saw the offenses were being committed. After that he went to the court; he was invited inside for inspection; before the invitation, he had doubted whether he crossed the threshold or not? From the open doorway, the constable professed that one of the defendants was drinking from a glass and the content of the glass was beer. The magistrates had decided that there was no case to answer, and the evidence was not acceptable as there were no search warrants to apply.
When an objection founded on lack of notice raised at trial, it may be determined by the Trial Chamber. Moreover, the Chamber determine whether the objection was not on time as to contemplate that the burden of proof has been moved from the prosecution to the Defence. By being so, the trial chamber looks at the factors, for example, whether a reasonable explanation has been provided for its failure to raise objection while providing evidence. Moreover, whether the objections were raised as soon as possible?
Limitation of exclusion of evidence came in 1984 verdict of Nix v. William (Debra Osborn). The Court, in this case, found that an inevitable discovery must be functional in cases where it would be convicted without constitutional violations. The inroads to the rule were made in another substantial case of Leon v. United State. The Court, in this case, found that the police officer who had executed the search in judicious reliance on a warrant was seen faulty due to the error made by Magistrate.
Andrew Choo has suggested three possible rationales: repute, compensation, and deterrence behind the exclusion of evidence. In this regard, Zuckerman preferred three frameworks: the remedial approach, legitimacy theory, and deterrent theory. While scholarships explain the justifications in a relatively dissimilar way, the rules are not divergent and can be integrated in a different way.
The principle of finding evidence on illegality is, however, no evidence in any case and is very much wide. In addition, if it is applied, most of the law and practice of evidence would get upset. As per the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure, and it always been practiced by the police for probing the places where a person has been arrested with a warrant. While if the occupier denies permission, the police may proceed without his permission. The courts, however, will keep on condemning this act by considering the police as trespassers. Though, the courts have never been held that the evidence that they found was not permissible.
The problem of Police Misconduct
To address the problem of police misconduct in collecting evidence, there are three important ways which would not involve the effectiveness of exclusionary rules and exclusion of evidence ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"W1uuAvhQ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Ho)","plainCitation":"(Ho)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":366,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/B7T9UMXA"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/B7T9UMXA"],"itemData":{"id":366,"type":"report","title":"Exclusion of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Analysis","publisher":"Social Science Research Network","publisher-place":"Rochester, NY","genre":"SSRN Scholarly Paper","source":"papers.ssrn.com","event-place":"Rochester, NY","abstract":"Most legal systems contain rules for the exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence. Clarity is gained by separating three lines of objection to reliance on such evidence in the legal determination of guilt. Each of them is directed at a different institutional actor. The first objection is to the manner in which the police had obtained the evidence; the second is to the use of the evidence by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused or to the inclusion of the evidence in the trial dossier; and the third is to the trial court’s reliance on the evidence in finding the accused guilty as charged or, where provision of reasons is required, in supporting that finding. Different theories or rationales for the exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence have clustered around these three lines of objection. It is usual to find more than one theory or rationale at work in shaping the law. The theoretical exploration is followed by an analysis of legal forms and techniques for exclusion, and a discussion of the major factors that have been treated as relevant in deliberation on exclusion.","URL":"https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3032237","number":"ID 3032237","shortTitle":"Exclusion of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Ho","given":"H. L."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2017",9,4]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,10]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Ho). To institute criminal action or disciplinary against the errant officer is the direct way of handling a specific instance. In this regard, the provision of clearer investigative rules and better training are the prophylactic measures. In addition, personal remedies can be obtained such as financial compensation by the state in spheres of public law and granting of damages under the law of torts.
Admissibility of Criminal Evidence
The procedures that govern the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases are rules of the law, and hence after the verdict on accusation there is right of criminal appeal. Usually, objection to criminal evidence is not based on technicalities, while the appeal would not necessarily be succeeded.
When an evidence is wrongfully brought before the Court, in such type of cases there is an appeal of right, though the trial judge would not be answerable for the admission of evidence. In such a course of action, the appeal will depend on the facts. In case of R. v. Wright in 1935, a prosecution witness made an incidental remark that the photographs of the prisoner were seen by him in the Rogues Gallery at Scotland Yard ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"p4YrYKir","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":360,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/Q5RCXKKJ"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/orkqtrjP/items/Q5RCXKKJ"],"itemData":{"id":360,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I","container-title":"The Journal of Criminal Law","page":"48-62","volume":"6","issue":"1","source":"SAGE Journals","DOI":"10.1177/002201834200600105","ISSN":"0022-0183","journalAbbreviation":"The Journal of Criminal Law","language":"en","issued":{"date-parts":[["1942",1,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I”). To this statement, no further references were made by the council and the Recorder.
The Principles of Exclusion in Criminal Cases
This may be viewed as irrational to a person who has no awareness regarding the difficulties integral in the trial. Nonetheless, the lawyers agree that their rules of evidence usually effective on withholding testimony. The central purpose is that such evidence might be specified undue weight or misleading. Admitting evidence would possibly overshadow its logical relevance in practice. Particularly for the reason, the 1938 Evidence Act is confined to reforms by the way of admissibility of evidence. Moreover, its application to the criminal proceeding, minor reforms were done only with attested documental proof.
With no denying the fact the admissibility of evidence is concerned with its credibility. For example, according to the rules of evidence, a witness might be allowed to giver definite testimony, but this will be inevitably be trusted. In addition, there is a difference between relevance and admissibility in various matters that are logically material. The efforts made by Sir James Stephen was to provide grounds to the rules of admissibility of evidence. Stephen by excluding much of its relevance discussed four rules of evidence exclusively. The principle of exclusion has constantly been mentioned in the Courts, but regrettably, its discussions have failed to make it clearer. The principles always try to modify the rules of exclusion. However, it is, not surprising to use res gets as the last option.
Critical Analysis
The severe costs of the exclusion of evidence are apparent. The fact that excludes evidence would possibly persuade a jury beyond a sensible doubt of the defendant’s culpability is not applicable to the matter of exclusion. Exclusion of evidence will continue to level criticism if it is present. Justice Cardozo, in this regard, condemned the rule by allowing “the criminal to go free because the constable has blundered” (Debra Osborn). On the other hand, it has been called a departure from common sense and less strong system for doing justice. In the United States, is inadmissible to obtain illegal evidence in criminal proceedings. While the rationale behind the rule is to discourage the investigative authorities from their interference of an individual's constitutional rights. It is, however, punitive in nature, therefore, there are no considerations to the genuine consequences of its application in any case.
Conclusion
Exclusion of evidence in genuine cases denies justice and sacrifice truth in the search of ideas. As it deters police from misconduct, therefore, it is superior, or it may abide police by the law. In addition, it might be prejudicial to permit the prosecution to use the evidence. While the exclusion of evidence has been represented as a source of upholding the rule of law. In legal perspective, evidence that was obtained illegally varies in different cases. A common perspective is having a balance among the competing considerations. Such considerations include the status of evidence in determining the gravity of the wrong committed by police and the criminal charges in obtaining the truth.
Works Cited
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Exclusion of Evidence » ICTR/ICTY/IRMCT Case Law Database. http://cld.irmct.org/notions/show/326/exclusion-of-evidence#. Accessed 10 Apr. 2019.
Ho, H. L. Exclusion of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Analysis. SSRN Scholarly Paper, ID 3032237, Social Science Research Network, 4 Sept. 2017. papers.ssrn.com, https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3032237.
“The Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Cases, I.” The Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 1942, pp. 48–62. SAGE Journals, doi:10.1177/002201834200600105.
