Criminal Evidence, Exclusionary Rule, trial
The evidence falls under the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents the prosecutor from relying on evidence gathered through means that violate the Constitution. There was no search warrant in getting the evidence and it resulted in illegal search and seizure which is against the dictates in the Fourth Amendment on protection of individuals and their property. In the case of Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), policemen unlawfully entered Toy's laundry making him admit that Yee was selling drugs. The narcotics agents then went to Yee and found the drugs. The court held Toy's statement and the seizure of drugs from Yee should be excluded as evidence because they were seized without a valid warrant and hence inadmissible.
According to Rule 103 (d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence the court is required to use all means practicable, including conducting a jury trial, to ensure that no inadmissible evidence is suggested to the jury. Also, Rule 403 allows the court to exclude relevant evidence that is prejudicial to the defendant. The evidence of the murder weapon should be excluded by the judge since it strengthens the prosecution case to the detriment of the defendant who is prejudiced.
However, the court can allow the prosecutor to introduce the evidence during the trial so as to weaken the credibility of the accused testimony. The evidence has been allowed by Supreme Court to prevent the defendant from committing perjury. The tainted evidence is only viable while impeaching the defendant but not as direct proof of his guilt (McCarr & Nordby, 2001).
[...] Criminal Evidence and Procedure- if judge decides to exclude the evidence can the prosecution introduce it at the trial? Contents Criminal Evidence and Procedure In case the judge decides to exclude the evidence can the prosecution introduce it at the trial? How does the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree" apply in this scenario? How can your defense team get around it? If the evidence is admitted, how else can you challenge it? Is there any possibility the judge may dismiss the case based on the evidence of the murder weapon not being introduced into evidence? [...]
[...] (1996). Criminal evidence and procedure: The statutory framework. London: Blackstone Press. Seabrooke, S., & Sprack, J. (1999). Criminal evidence and procedure: The esential [i.e. essential] framework. London: Blackstone. [...]
[...] Is there any possibility the judge may dismiss the case based on the evidence of the murder weapon not being introduced into evidence? The foundation of the evidence in this case is premised on the weapon of murder and the blood stained gloves. Without this evidence, the prosecution has no other evidence to link the defendant with murder charge. However, the evidence resulted from an unconstitutional search of the defendant's car which led them to search his house. The government agents did not have a valid search warrant when they gained entry into the house. [...]
[...] The accused is required to plead/ no contest which has to be allowed by the court after the prosecution's recommendation. The defendant should not plead guilty before reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling since the guilty plea may waive his right of appeal. The appeal will entail hearing new evidence defendant's testimony of illegal search and seizure, testimony of the police involved, witness evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, prosecutor and interrogating any other facts that may help the defendant's case (Finch & Fafinski, 2011). [...]
[...] The court held that the illegal evidence could not be admissible since it was tainted. The doctrine compliments the exclusionary rule that prevents evidence obtained through means that violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution safeguards individuals' homes, assets and personal effects and also protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures of their property. Even if a warrant is present, the search can still be unreasonable if: First, a warrant was insufficient on its face. Second, the property searched was not specifically described in the warrant. [...]
using our reader.