Occasionally in any given legal administration, evidence is the most significant element in the administration of justice. Basically, it can be determined to be true that the basis of legal justice relies on strength of the evidence presented before it. This implies that no form of legal justice can rendered without the knowledge of the judicial system on the facts of a particular crime case, and more often despite having a clear consent on the facts about a given case, evidence has to be presented before an honorable judicial system to prove the proclaimed facts of a case (Shortall, 2013) . The collection processing and analyzing of evidence before presenting it to the court if law influences the success or failure of the case as presented before a jury. In most cases, the evidence is produced by the conflicting sides to ascertain their point and in so doing persuade the court that they are equitable to get the verdict in their favor. Therefore, evidence in a court of law in the administration of justice is regarded to be assembly, organization, demonstration and assessment of information for the reasons of disputes resolution in reference to past events in legal arbitration. Evidence can, therefore, be defined as the available data or information that is presented before a court of law in form of oral statements, written materials or human witnesses to be proof of the facts in a particular criminal case (Shortall, 2013) .
There are conditions under which evidence can be presented in a court of law and conditions which must be fulfilled for evidence to be acceptable in lawful proceedings. The manner in which evidence is presented and argued to the jury will determine the admissibility of the case. Generally, there are rules that restrict the presentation of evidence during a trial no matter how relevant it may appear to the case. These particular rules can tag the evidence is inadmissible and may require the judge to ignore the evidence. It is usual for evidence that is inappropriate or inconsequential to be regarded as inadmissible. In this case study for instance, the evidence regarding the homicide case is excluded from the trial by the judge and termed as inadmissible and therefore the evidence is rejected under exclusion rule, hence, rejected by the power of law and cannot be acceptable in any future proceeding. With the massive physical evidence implicating the victim to the case, it is up to the attorney to create a robust case which will support the arguments for the accused against all the accusations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On accounts of history, admissibility and exclusion regulations are regarded as the consequents of assessment of evidence by the jury system which comprises of common citizens who do not have the expertise of evaluating evidence. These rules therefore came up due to the demand to keep away certain evidence from the inexperienced jurors to avoid mishandling like creation of discriminating prejudgments in their minds due to the weight of the evidence. The exclusion of the evidence at the start f the case does not limit the judges from introducing them in the future. It is up to the plaintiff to develop a water tight evidence and argument which must be seconded by an advocate for it to be resubmitted in the case. Unlike in the case of time-bound cases which makes it hard for the jury to incorporate new evidence, the homicide cases can go on for years, thus, readmission of new evidence is left to the decision of the jury. These exclusion rules although still apply to-date even in the absence of the jury systems because even the judges themselves being human can also be victims to the same cognitive and other setbacks just like the jury. Like in this case study, the evidence is excluded from the trial because in case it is presented to the jury there can prejudgments of the client concerning the homicide due to lack of expertise of handling evidence by the jurors. (Lai, 2015) .
The concept of the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ is a similar doctrine to the exclusion rule. This is a legal figure of speech mostly common in the judicial system of the United States of America which has the meaning of evidence which is the fruit is inadmissible if it has been acquired illegally hence the source of an evidence is poisonous because in this case it violates the fourth U.S. Constitutional amendment. The fourth constitutional reform states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” ("FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE: An analysis", 2018). In case evidence is obtained in such a manner, it is excluded by the judicial system during a trial and such evidence cannot be used anywhere else in the state. For instance in this homicide case, the concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree is relevant because despite the availability of evidence that is linking the convicted to the homicide case, there is part of that evidence that was illegally obtained by the police from the client’s vehicle and residence when they performed searches in these respective places against the client’s constitutional rights. The police officers abused the rights of the accused by going ahead to do search on the accused house and car without obtaining rightful permission from the courtroom. Such evidence may be considered inadmissible and if well exploited by the defense attorney will weaken the case further improving the chance of the accused walking scot-free.
Therefore, despite the fact that exclusion rule may not be very efficient in some cases given its historical account, it can however be significant in other cases in which protection of the citizen rights is paramount. For example, in cases like the one of this scenario where the concept of the fruit of the poisonous tree is faulted in its approach and does not effectively prevent police misbehavior because of its lack of incentive, the application of exclusion rule can be valid with the sole objective of protecting the rights of the citizens. Clearly speaking, the prosecution of a case like the one in this scenario cannot use evidence that is purported to be obtained illegally by the police. However, there are some exceptions to this doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” which implies that evidence obtained illegally by the police may be admissible under situations regarded in law courts as “inevitable discovery” which implies that evidence could have been acquired illegally but it is lawfully applicable (Tarleton, 2018) .
In this homicide case for instance, the defense attorney is responsible for the investigation of the factors that is likely to convince a judicial system to dismiss a case like. Independent collection of information for a case may be expensive however it is recommended because it necessary to maximize the chances under which a case may be dismissed and ascertains the fact that the defense attorney team is ready for the case trial. For instance, in this case study, it is the responsibility of the defense attorney to investigate the legality of the evidence presented to the judge against the convicted regarding an homicide because there is also proof that can be used to overrule the existing evidence to be inadmissible given the fact that the police carried out searches of the client’s vehicle and residence in violation of his constitutional rights ("Can an attorney get my case dismissed?", 2018) .
Getting accessed to adequate evidence and data regarding a case enhance the premium evaluation of the justice condition of a case to be dismissed and enables the attorney to assess probabilities for winning a case trial. However, in case the evidence is submitted before the judge in contrary to the objection by the defense team that it should be excluded, then the defense team has got the opportunity of challenging the evidence by requesting the court of law for a change of venue of the criminal proceedings on the basis of denial of justice by not abiding to the exclusion rule. Change of venue is a constitutional right for the defendant in any case the defense team feels like there is unfair ruling in a case in court and therefore can request the defense attorney can appeal to the court to have the case heard at another court of his choice. On regular bases, in order to seek the change of a venue, the defense attorney has to write motion with affidavits that express clearly why the defendant is not able to receive a fair hearing. However, the privilege of change of a venue can be relinquished if the defendant does not file affidavits before a designated stage after which he loses the right to challenge a court verdict and cannot even raise the matter on appeal ("Can an attorney get my case dismissed?", 2018) .
References
Can an attorney get my case dismissed?. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.pacefirm.com/faq/dismissal.html
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE: An analysis. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/law-of-evidence-the-fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-law-essays.php
Ho, Hock Lai. (2015). The Legal Concept of Evidence. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 12-14.
Shortall, S. (2013). Using Evidence in Policy: The Importance of Mediating Beliefs and Practices. Sociologia Ruralis , 53 (3), 349-368. doi: 10.1111/soru.12015
Tarleton, M. (2018). Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Illegally Obtained Evidence. Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fruit-the-poisonous-tree.html
