Project #84944 - Evidence Admission and Suppression - peer review reply post

Evaluate the rationale of at least 2 classmates James Ridge and Bryan Dodds regarding placing limits on the gathering and admissibility/suppression of evidence used to determine guilt or innocence. Provide the scriptural, constitutional, and scholarly basis for your analysis.

 

Each reply must be a minimum of 150 words.

 

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in them. As such, reply posts must do more than merely affirm, restate or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s). Instead, your responsive posts must make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion.

 

James Ringe

 

The court system is dependent upon information, in order to make sure that the court system remains a figure of justice and operates in a lawful manner that information must be approved. Not approved in the sense of picking and choosing what is allowed to affect a case, but approved to insure that it was acquired legally, is actually fact and not opinion. If the information passes this screening then the information is allowed in the court proceedings since its purity will not undermine the goal of the search for justice in the court system. This screening also insures that the defendants constitutional rights are not violated, such as the fourth amendment no unreasonable searches or seizures. Outside sources that a juror may gain from media and other sources does not fall under this scrutiny. Much of this information is often opinion and assumptions with little regard for fact and presented in a manner that boosts ratings. “You shall not repeat a false report. Do not join the wicked in putting your hand, as an unjust witness, upon anyone.”(Exodus 23:1 New American Bible). Information that a juror uses that does not flow through the court system is in essence a false report; as such our court system follows this biblical passage to prevent jurors from giving an improper sentence based upon a false report.

 

New American Bible. (n.d.). New York: Catholic Book Publishing.

 

 

 

Bryan Dodds

 

  In today’s world of social media and unparalleled internet access at all times, information gained by juries on a defendant can be harmful to a case. An excellent example of this is the Facebook profile of a defendant, juries may be tempted to look someone up on this or other social media networks and attempt to see what kind of person they are. This can be harmful in cases because, if someone charged with armed robbery for example has pictures on their Facebook of themselves posing with guns, it may lead to juries being biased regardless of what real evidence is presented at trial. “Jurors should make the commitment not to use electronic devices to gain or send information about the parties, attorneys, or the case they are being selected for” (ABA, 2013).

     I believe social media does have limited uses in a criminal justice capacity, as social media sometimes can help police develop a profile for a criminal they are searching for. However it’s very hard to judge someone based off what you read on social media. I don’t think it in most cases provides any real evidence that can help the case, especially in the sense of looking at what someone frequently posts or what pages they “like” on Facebook. There is an exception to this however, in the recent shooting of two reporters on air in Virginia by Bryce Williams. Although Mr. Williams died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, before he passed away he made several Twitter posts talking about the killings and he even posted a video of himself shooting the reporters on Facebook. This is an excellent example of how sometimes social media can provide reasonable evidence that I believe should be used in a trial. 

References:

     A Fair Trial: Jurors Use of Electronic Devices & the Internet. American Bar Association, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Jury/fairtrialhandbookauthcheckdam.ashx

Subject Law
Due By (Pacific Time) 10/04/2015 01:00 pm
Report DMCA
TutorRating
pallavi

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews
More..
amosmm

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
PhyzKyd

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews
More..
rajdeep77

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews
More..
sctys

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews
More..
sharadgreen

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews
More..
topnotcher

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews
More..
XXXIAO

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
More..
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by AceMyHW.com - Copyright Policy