Exclusionary Rule: Protecting Citizens From Unlawful Govt. Actions

The exclusionary rule is a legal concept, based on The Fourth Amendment that prevents evidence that was obtained or analyzed in a way that violates the defendant's constitutional rights, from being used in a court of law during a criminal proceeding. This evidence is 'excluded' from what can be used against a defendant during a trial.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The exclusionary law protects citizens from unreasonable seizures, searches, and intrusion from police officers and government officials. The rule also prevents prosecution in court in a case where police obtained evidence in a person's property without a warrant signed by a judge. The exclusionary rule also prevents violation of the Sixth Amendment, which gives everyone the right to counsel.

There are several benefits of the exclusionary rule, and they will be discussed in the section below:

It assumes the innocence of individuals before being pronounced guilty

The justice system of the United States assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The exclusionary rule supports this concept in a way that it prevents that any person charged with a crime, is still assumed to be innocent., thereby giving a fair trial.

Reduces risks of manufactured evidence

The exclusionary rule states that all the evidence to be admitted against any individual should be documented. If any evidence presented doesn't have this documentation, it is no longer considered evidence. This rule prevents officials from planting false evidence against an individual.

Probable cause is required

Probable cause means that for a warrant to be issued, there must be a legitimate suspicion of criminal activity. This means that even if an individual is accused of a particular crime, their actions must be monitored before they are searched. A probable cause adds extra steps to the chain of evidence, but it minimizes the time, effort, and money required to acquire it. This way, it reduces the number of individuals who are falsely accused.

Limits the power held by the government

The exclusionary rule prevents leaders from gaining full control of the population. It allows ordinary citizens to protect the sanctity of their homes, gives them property privacy, and is a shield against misuse by government officials.

Ensurers lawmakers follow the law

The consistent rule of law is dictated by how much society is committed to it. The exclusionary rule ensures that those accused of a certain crime are not convicted by evidence collected before they were indicted. Uncalled for lawlessness is not justifiable enough to put anyone behind bars.

Best Evidence Rule

Best evidence refers to an original document offered as evidence in a trial, as opposed to a copy of the material or any other substitute for the document, such as a witness description. The best evidence rules states that the original copy of a document is considered superior evidence. The evidence rule also states that secondary evidence will only be allowed if primary evidence (best evidence) is not available and cannot be obtained.

A scenario that best describes the application of the best evidence rule is that of the Donnelly case involving two McDonald's employees who had accused their employer of denying them fair wages even after working overtime. During the trial of the case, the two employees submitted evidence of the unfair pay from their employer. However, Donnelly, their employer, objected to the affidavits claiming the documents were different from their initial testimony and called for their exclusion from the evidence based on the best evidence rule. The court granted the motion, and the case was dismissed.

There are different methods of demonstrative evidence that can be used to explain the concept of best evidence, and they include:

Actual evidence. This type of evidence shows the actual objects used in committing a particular crime, for example, a bloody glove acquired from a murder scene.

Illustrative evidence. This is evidence that illustrates an individual testimony at disposition, for example, a photograph.

Violation of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

To avoid violation of the rule of the Fruit of The Poisonous Tree, one should do the following:

Avoid coercion. Police officers and other authorities should obtain statements from individuals the correct way, and avoid coercion, for example, beating the statement out of a defendant.

Observe the Inevitable Discovery rule. This rule allows evidence to be admissible even if the methods used to locate the evidence were illegal, provided the evidence would have been found anyway.

Observe the attenuation exception. This exception means that even if the link between an unlawful search and admissible evidence is thin, the evidence can still be allowed. This applies to a situation where the unwarranted search may have led to the revelation of evidence.

Ramifications of violation of Fruit of The Poisonous Tree

Inadmissibility of evidence.

Any evidence that is considered the Fruit of the poisonous tree is not admissible in a court of law. A good scenario for this would be an illegal wiretap. If police illegally listen in on a conversation involving drug dealers and they find evidence of drugs in a different location from information acquired from the conversation, both the statement of the drug dealers(the poisonous tree) and the drugs found (the Fruit of the poisonous tree) are inadmissible and won't be accepted as evidence.

Court appeals.

If even after a sentence has already been passed, it is found that the evidence used to convict an individual violated the concept of the Fruit of the poisonous tree, an individual has the right to appeal the case and get another trial.

It can lead to the suppression of otherwise reliable evidence.

Reliable evidence may be suppressed if it violates the rule of the Fruit of the poisonous tree. For example, if an officer suspects an individual of illegal gun possession and goes to search the person's house without a warrant and finds the gun, the gun will be the Fruit of the poisonous tree and will be suppressed (https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/Lawrence%20S.%20Jezouit%203.pdf).

The Christian Burial Speech

The Christian Burial Speech involves a case where a man, Williams, was arrested for the murder of a 10-year-old girl, was convicted of murder over evidence that was acquired in a way that violated the right to counsel. Williams was being transported back to Des Moines from jail in Davenport, Iowa. The officers accompanying him agreed not to question him during the ride back. However, one of the officers, knowing Williams was a former mental patient and a profoundly religious man, used these reasons to 'manipulate' Williams to reveal the location of the dead girl's body, which up to then, had not been found.

Williams was later tried and convicted based on this evidence. The Supreme Court of Iowa, together with the trial court, affirmed that Williams had waived his right to counsel. However, the Federal District Court felt that the evidence used to convict Williams had been wrongfully admitted because Williams had not waived his right to counsel. Later, the Court of Appeals agreed that the evidence had been wrongfully admitted.

In a reading by Skolnick and Leo in Criminal Justice Ethics called "The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation," it is noted that appeals to conscience are allowed. Still, in the Brewer v Willimas case, the police isolated Williams and denied him counsel by his lawyer. Furthermore, they had agreed not to question Williams during the ride. The principles outlined by Skolnick and Leo promote the fairness rationale, which upholds the system's integrity, and the deterrence principle, which prevents unlawful police conduct. These two principles are the reason why the Williams case is controversial. The burial speech led to the discovery of reliable evidence, but denying Williams counsel and breaking the promise not to interrogate him does not uphold the system's integrity (http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/3-police/brewer-v-williams.htm).

The Shocking Conscience Test

The shocking conscience test is performed to determine whether the actions of a stage agent do not meet the standards of civilized decency. If an officer, or state agent behaves in a manner that is indecent in order to acquire evidence, the evidence will be suppressed. An example is the Rochin case, where three officers illegally entered Antonio Rochin's room. Rochin was suspected of selling narcotics. The officers noticed two capsules on a table but Rochin quickly swallowed them. The officers tried to get the capsules out by wrestling Rochin and trying to open his mouth but they were unsuccessful. The officers then took Rochin to the hospital and the capsules were extracted by a doctor. The capsules were found to have morphine and Rochin was convicted of possession of narcotics. The behavior of the officers. 'Shook the conscience', in that if went against the standards of decency and fairness of the constitution.

Coercion

Coercion is the practice of gaining leverage over a victim by the use of force or threats of force. Coercion may involve the infliction of pain, whether physical or psychological, on a victim. A victim may even be threatened with further harm to force them to cooperate with the person coercing them.

Coercion violates the Fifth Amendment, which protects an individual from making self-incriminatory statements. If an individual is beaten or tortured to make a statement, the Fifth Amendment has been violated, and the statement cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.

Coercion may involve:

Torture

Blackmail

Extortion

Sexual assault

Threats to induce favors

References

9 Exclusionary Rule Pros and Cons. Retrieved from https://vittana.org/9-exclusionary-rule-pros-and-cons

Brewer v Williams: Christian Burial Speech Case. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2020, from http://www.paulsjusticepage.com/cjethics/3-police/brewer-v-williams.htm

Shock-the-Conscience Test. Retrieved from https://law.jrank.org/pages/10268/Shock-Conscience-Test.html

Team, C. (2017, May 23). Best Evidence Rule - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes. Retrieved from https://legaldictionary.net/best-evidence-rule/