Reference no: EM13984809

Topic: Evidence Admission and Suppression

Each state has adopted a variety of rules regarding what facts are deemed proper evidence. Only what a court deems admissible evidence may be considered in reaching a verdict of guilt or innocence. Evidence that is suppressed because it was gathered in violation of the Constitution may have a profound impact on the guilt of a defendant. However, the ability to limit what information a juror has access to is becoming increasingly more difficult to control.

The prevalence of smartphones and tablets allows jurors to gather data about a defendant, victim, crime scene, or witness that was not authorized or even presented at trial or in fact was specifically prohibited by law to be used to determine guilt. But, the temptation to know "the truth" can drive jurors to ignore the mandates of the Constitution and the laws governing proper evidence.

Thread:

If the goal for a trial is the search for justice, evaluate why there are rules that limit a juror's access to information.

Should guilt or innocence only use information gathered in compliance with the Constitution and approved by the judge?
What happens if there are no rules?

Should there be exceptions, and if so, are exceptions still a decision in the hands of the judge or can individual jurors make up their own rules about what is useful information to decide guilt or punish?

Review the Grading Rubric. Be sure you provide the scriptural, constitutional, and scholarly basis for your positions.

Replies:

Evaluate the reasoning of 2 classmates regarding placing limits on the gathering and admissibility/suppression of evidence used to determine guilt or innocence.

Review the Grading Rubric. Provide the scriptural, constitutional, and scholarly basis for your analysis.

Discussion Board Forums Assistance:

How reliable is the internet for factual reports about the people, places, and events that might influence a juror's decision to convict? Is Facebook or Twitter a valid source to form an opinion about the truthfulness of a witness or the honesty of a victim? Should videos posted on YouTube by or about a police officer serve as a basis for evaluating his/her testimony? Does belonging to a group or "liking" a gun club, animal rights organization, political party, or pro-abortion group worthy of consideration in a search for justice? Are blogs, websites, wikis or search engines like Google unbiased sources of news and information?