Introduction
Evidence plays a significant role in the administration of justice through the court process. Evidence refers to the proof presented in a court to show the truth of circumstances surrounding a case. The judge and the jury rely on evidence to make decisions, judgment and convict guilty parties in criminal and civil disputes. Sources of evidence include written documents, photographs, electronic records, oral statements, and physical objects (Parker, 2017). Lawyers collect and submit evidence in courts to prove the positions of their clients, and there is a high probability that some individuals falsify evidence for their interest or are biased to one party in the case. Therefore, the Federal government has established laws of evidence that guide the collection, organization, and presentation of evidence. The best evidence rule is a critical principle in the US court system that influences the admissibility of real evidence in a case.
Definition and Rationale of the Best Evidence Rule
The best evidence principle is a common law rule established in the 1800’s that has been repeatedly modified and codified to keep up with the changes in the modern world. The law requires the provision of original copies of photographic, video, and written documents to prove the truthfulness of the content (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach, 2014). For example, in a civil lawsuit involving a breach of contract, the plaintiff should provide the original copy of the contract. However, duplicate copies of the evidence are admissible if there is a genuine reason why a party does not have the original copy. Instances where the court allows the submission of duplicate copies includes when the original copy in the hands of the opponent party, precise nature, or lost without a fraudulent objective.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The adoption of the best evidence rule in the USA was motivated by the need to ensure that the courts considered the best evidence in a case before passing judgments. Contention over the authenticity of evidence is a common source of objections in courts, and without the principle, judges faced a significant challenge determining the truth. Since many cases are used as judicial precedents, it was important to ensure that only the best evidence was taken into account. The best evidence rule helps to prevent fraudulent destruction and alteration of evidence. Although the equivalent of the original evidence is admissible, it should be of high quality. As a result, questions about the authenticity of evidence with significant influence in a case are easily answered. Besides, the best evidence rule is essential in establishing the custody of evidence to ensure that the parties involved in handling the evidence have no personal interest in a case.
Review of Cases with Regard to Wiretapping
Electronic wiretapping has become a popular method of collecting evidence among federal agents. It involves placing an electronic device to record oral and telephone conversation of persons with suspected involvement in criminal activities. However, the law enforcement agencies must adhere with the restriction of wiretapping and use the right procedures for packaging and preservation of wiretapped evidence to ensure its admissibility in court (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach, 2014). The cases Goldman v. the United States and Katz v. the United States reveals the major regulatory provisions in relation to wiretapping evidence.
It is important to understand the details of these cases before examining the legal aspects of wiretapping evidence. In Katz v. the United States, the defendant Katz was accused of illegal transmission of wagering information using a phone booth (Vitiello, 2017). When the FBI learned of Katz’s illegal activities, they began the process of collecting information for his capture and consequent prosecution. This was accomplished by placing an electronic device in the phone booth to listen to his conversation. The FBI presented the phone recordings as evidence for Katz’s prosecution, and the court relied on the information in sentencing the defendant.
Goldman v. United States federal agents used wiretapping to collect evidence against the defendant who was accused of initiating a conspiracy in attempting to obtain money in bankruptcy procedures fraudulently. Federal agents entered the defendant’s office and planted a detectaphone to listen to conversations. Although the defendants were convicted, wiretapping the defendant’s office was ruled to have gone against the Fourth Amendment of the constitution.
Wiretapping Restriction
From these cases, there are two restrictions to wiretapping evidence. Foremost, the federal agents should not intrude on the privacy of a person when collecting evidence as provided for in the Fourth Amendment. Secondly, federal agents can only place eavesdropping devices in areas where a suspect expects to have privacy through a court’s authorization (Chan, Kim, & Wagman, 2017). For example, in Goldman v. United States federal agents penetrated the defendant’s office without a warrant, thus had no authorization. However, in Katz v, United States the electronic device was placed outside the phone booth. Therefore, the defendant enjoyed his privacy inside the booth. Moreover, federal agents should have reasonable suspicion to eavesdrop on personal conversations.
Packaging and Preservation of Wiretapping Evidence
Proper packaging and preservation of wiretapped evidence are vital to prove its authenticity in court. The government should ensure that the equipment used to collect information is working properly and operated by a qualified person. Evidence should be preserved in tape and should follow the right chain of custody detailing the collection, filing, and transfer of evidence between parties. The court follows the chain of custody to verify the evidence.
Wiretapping Evidence and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is closely related to the collection of wiretapped evidence. According to the doctrine, evidence obtained through illegal means should be excluded from the court or ruled as inadmissible (Cox, 2015). However, the evidence is admissible if it was collected without any illegal activity and is admissible under the doctrine of good faith. Moreover, the doctrine also allowed the presentation of evidence if it was inevitable that it would be discovered. In the same manner, wiretapped evidence should not be obtained illegally.
Impact of Lack of Original Copy on Court Judgement
Following this information, it is possible to determine the impact of lack of original copy on the court judgment in the current scenario. The original tape of the case contains the suspect’s conversations, and it is imperative to prove the contents of the tape in court. Problems with the recording equipment are a major challenge in the collection of the evidence because the duplicate videos are barely audible. Although there is a clear chain of custody, it is impossible to determine how the tapes were lost from the custodian. Therefore, it will be difficult to give a reasonable explanation of why the original copy of the tape recording is not admitted in court. If the case is based on the evidence in the tape, it will not be surprising if the judge throws out the case.
References
Chan, J., Kim, J. H., & Wagman, L. (2017). On the Tradeoffs between Privacy and Security: Evidence from Wiretap Orders.
Cox, A. M. (2015). Does It Stay, or Does It Go: Application of the Good-Faith Exception When the Warrant Relied upon Is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 72, 1505.
Parker, R. B. (2017). A definition of privacy. In Privacy (pp. 83-104). Routledge.
Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Digital crime and digital terrorism. Prentice Hall Press.
Vitiello, M. (2017). Katz v. United States: Back to the Future. U. Rich. L. Rev., 52, 425.
