The Exclusionary Rule
Justifications for the Exclusionary Rule (3)
The Exclusionary rule demands that the evidence gathered via the violation of privilege be excluded at the trial since the privileges are justified by the United States constitution. While the rule is controversial there are three justifications in its defense. The justifications for the Exclusionary rule are Deterrence, Judicial integrity moral justification, and constitutional justification.
The constitutional justification is based on the terms of the fourth amendment. The amendment highlights that persons are secured off against unreasonable searches, secure in effects, papers, houses, and in person. Additionally, warranties are to be issued only upon an affirmation of oath on probable cause after clarification of the thing, person and the place to be searched. The judicial integrity in on the other hand based on the role of the court in ensuring admissible administration of justice. It thus aims at keeping both the prosecution and the police at toes in obtaining legal evidence. Deterrence is eventually aimed at preventing the police from obtaining evidence through either force statements or coercion. As a result, the court dismisses any case whose evidence they identify was obtained illegally.
Exceptions to the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine (3)
The doctrine implies that evidence that is obtained illegally cannot form the basis of determination of the trial. The three main exceptions to the doctrine are attenuation, inevitable discovery, and good faith. The inevitable discovery argument is based on the fact that the police would have in any way discovered the evidence without the illegal search. The good faith on the other means that police carried out the search with a positive intent, however, the warrant turned out to be invalid. The attenuation principle eventually comes into effect if the correlation between the misconduct by the police has become so weak to hold the evidence illegal.
Conduct of judges at the first appearance (4)
The trial process for criminal procedures is proceeded by a set of four activities implemented by the judge. The judge initially reads out the charges that the defendant is arraigned against as well as the respective charges. The defendant is then sensitized on their right on a preliminary trial. They are further advised on the essence of the practice, their right to a trial, and subsequently their right to trial by a jury in the trial court. The defendant is thirdly sailed through interaction with the right to counsel and ascertained the offer is proved to be indigent upon a request for the counsel. The judge eventually sets out a preliminary hearing to establish the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Preliminary hearings and grand jury review.
A grand jury hearing or a preliminary hearing is set to ensure that the defendant is not charged upon insufficient evidence. The state through the prosecution department has thus to justify that the defendant committed the crimes. The judge hears the prosecution against the defendant presented by the state. The evidence is however not exhausted since it is only intended to establish a probable cause. The judge eventually determines whether the evidence is sufficient and if not dismisses the case. A grand jury review is on the contrary used as an alternative to a preliminary hearing. Some pre-determined members of the public are set to hear the arraigned evidence against the defendant and determine their validity. The main difference between a preliminary hearing and a grand jury review is that the preliminary hearing is conducted by a judge while the jury review is conducted by the members of the public.