Criminal Evidence In Criminal Cases
Criminal Evidence
Uniqua Campbell
Central Carolina Technical College
February 3, 2014
What is criminal evidence? Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony that will identify guilt, blame, or fault in a criminal case. In many cases, it is questioned upon what actually constitutes “acceptable” evidence (Ellis, 2008). From time to time there have been many cases which have been thrown out, and criminals who have gone free, because the evidence was “corrupt” so to say. To be sure of whether the evidence presented is admissible, one must adhere to but not limited to one of the following: the exclusionary rule, and the fruit of the poisonous tree.
The Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is available …show more content…
And the fruit of the poisonous tree considers that any further evidence also found as a result of the unlawful search will also be inadmissible at trial. The meaning of its name “the fruit of the poisonous tree” means that if the content of the source the “tree” is corrupt then so is everything that it produces the “fruit” (Walters, 2011). In the case The State of Ohio v. Farris, on December 18, 2002 and highway patrol man stopped Stephen Farris for speeding. As the officer approached the car he smelled an odor of burnt marijuana coming from the defendants car. The officer did not see Farris smoking nor did he see him throw anything out the window. The officer than conducted a pat-down search and found no evidence of drugs. Acting out of probable cause says the officer, he took Farris’s keys and instructed him to sit in the police car. The officer began to explain to the defendant that he smelled marijuana and without Miranda Warning him first, the officer began to ask Farris incriminating questions. After questioning him, the officer then Mirandized him and asked the same questions again getting the same response. And the officer informed the defendant that he was going to search the vehicle, and as a result of the search he found a glass pipe and cigarette papers. The defendant was convicted with a misdemeanor of drug paraphernalia. However, the Supreme Court ruled that because the officer did not mirandize Farris first, that all evidence was inadmissible (Pfeifer,
Uniqua Campbell
Central Carolina Technical College
February 3, 2014
What is criminal evidence? Criminal evidence is any exhibit or testimony that will identify guilt, blame, or fault in a criminal case. In many cases, it is questioned upon what actually constitutes “acceptable” evidence (Ellis, 2008). From time to time there have been many cases which have been thrown out, and criminals who have gone free, because the evidence was “corrupt” so to say. To be sure of whether the evidence presented is admissible, one must adhere to but not limited to one of the following: the exclusionary rule, and the fruit of the poisonous tree.
The Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is available …show more content…
And the fruit of the poisonous tree considers that any further evidence also found as a result of the unlawful search will also be inadmissible at trial. The meaning of its name “the fruit of the poisonous tree” means that if the content of the source the “tree” is corrupt then so is everything that it produces the “fruit” (Walters, 2011). In the case The State of Ohio v. Farris, on December 18, 2002 and highway patrol man stopped Stephen Farris for speeding. As the officer approached the car he smelled an odor of burnt marijuana coming from the defendants car. The officer did not see Farris smoking nor did he see him throw anything out the window. The officer than conducted a pat-down search and found no evidence of drugs. Acting out of probable cause says the officer, he took Farris’s keys and instructed him to sit in the police car. The officer began to explain to the defendant that he smelled marijuana and without Miranda Warning him first, the officer began to ask Farris incriminating questions. After questioning him, the officer then Mirandized him and asked the same questions again getting the same response. And the officer informed the defendant that he was going to search the vehicle, and as a result of the search he found a glass pipe and cigarette papers. The defendant was convicted with a misdemeanor of drug paraphernalia. However, the Supreme Court ruled that because the officer did not mirandize Farris first, that all evidence was inadmissible (Pfeifer,