Reference no: EM133038616

1. Inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows unconstitutionally seized evidence to be admitted in court if the judge is convinced that it was inevitable that the evidence would have been found legally (Hails, 2018). This exception was established to the exclusionary Rule was Nix v. Williams (1984). Independent source exception to the exclusionary rule, in order to admit evidence, the prosecution must be able to convince the judge that even though the police violated the Fourth Amendment at some point during the investigation, they discovered the evidence in question without relying on evidence that was obtained by unconstitutional methods (Hails, 2018). The evidence found would have to be proven that it was obtained from a different source but was not connected with the illegal search and seizure. Both inevitable discovery exception and independent source expectation are similar because they are part of the exclusionary rule, and the judge would need convincing. Both differ because inevitable discovery would need to be proven that inevitably had discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means. Compared to inevitable discovery, the independent source would have to prove that the evidence was obtained from an independent source but not connected to an unlawful search and seizure. The distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding because the evidence is everything, and it can make or break a case.

2. Inevitable discovery to the exceptional rule is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court. The inevitable discovery doctrine was first adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. In that case, Williams, the defendant, challenged the admissibility of evidence about the location and condition of the victim's body, given that it had been obtained from him in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Court held that the evidence was admissible because law enforcement would "inevitably" have discovered the body even without Williams' statements, because a massive search had been underway in the very location where the body was ultimately found. Prior to Nix v. Williams, an inevitable discovery rule had been recognized in the "vast majority" of both state and federal courts. In its opinion, the Court formally adopt the rule as part of its own jurisprudence. Yes, this distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding because it allows for equity and justice given the fact that the court will allow a crucial evidence to be admitted even though such evidence was obtained illegally but provided it is such evidence that would have still be obtained legally.

3. Looking at the Exclusionary Rule, it declared that evidence obtained by federal agents in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used in federal court (Hails, 2014). The Exclusionary Rule can have many exceptions, more specifically, the Inevitable Discovery Exception and the Independent Source Exception. The Inevitable Discovery Exception allows admission of evidence that was discovered in an unlawful search or seizure if it would have be discovered in the same condition anyway, by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the unlawful search or seizure occurred (Cornell Law School, n.d.). This exception is based on the idea that police would have found evidence even if they had not used unconstitutional procedures (Hails, 2014). Compared to the Independent Source Exception, evidence is initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure which may later be admissible through a constitutionally valid search or seizure (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Looking at this exception, the prosecution must convince the judge that the police discovered the evidence without relying on unconstitutional procedures (Hails, 2014). Looking at both exceptions, the distinction is crucial because it makes the jurors more aware of the admissibility of the evidence. In any case, evidence plays a major role whether or not the defendant is guilty of the convicted crimes.

4. The inevitable discovery exception is a law that states evidence that was gathered by illegal means may still be admissible in court if the evidence obtained was going to be found anyway. For example, if the police heard a rumor that a house was being used to sell drugs and stormed the house without a warrant. If the police had a warrant, then the evidence and drugs would have been discovered either way. The independent source exception applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. An example of this would be if police had a valid search warrant to seize drugs and previously had warrantless searches. The evidence seized would be valid because it was taken during a valid search even if there was an invalid history. This distinction is necessary in court because to have valid evidence you need to know if it is admissible or not. Also, if it is abmissible, it is important to know why and how much of it is admissible to build the strongest case possible.

5. Inevitable discovery to the exclusionary rule is a doctrine that allows for the admission of evidence. In this case it allows for even seized evidence to be admitted to the court. Although this evidence must have been found under rightful and lawful terms otherwise inadmissable. Independent source exceptions is evidence found in an unlawful nature then later taken despite the illegality. Yes, this distinction is crucial unlawful evidence that contradicts a defendant is unfair. This forces the jury into a decision without knowing that evidence was taken unlawfully.