Exclusionary Rule Research Paper

Name here

Exclusionary rule

University name

Professor name

Course name and section

2 July 2016

Abstract

The legal system is one of the least understood concepts in the modern world. One issue today is the role of the exclusionary rule. This paper will define the exclusionary rule in two key contexts: the confession system and the role of the fourth amendment in evidence gathering. Following these definitions, it will define the key differences between the application of the exclusionary rule, such as location, defenses, etc. It will conclude with a brief summary of facts.

Introduction To many people with a popular mind, the police are a corrupt organization dedicated to constant hypocrisy and breaking the law instead

Most often, this rule is applied when the confession violates Miranda. Of course, the latter definition is the result of the notorious Miranda v. Arizona, a case infamous for its conflict with the defendant’s knowledge of his own rights (Worrall 2007). The exclusionary rule can be cited in one of three major cases, including those involving: standing, impeachment, and fruit of the poisonous tree (Worrall 2007). First is the role of the exclusionary rule in standing cases. Couch v United States held that one’s knowledge of their Miranda rights is a personal right (Worrall 2007). Someone who hopes to have their confession or interrogation deemed to be invalid must possess the proper standing. That is, there must be proper evidence that the confession was obtained by force or by violating the suspect’s rights. Otherwise, the standing is deemed invalid and the exclusionary rule does not

The exclusionary rule in this instance relies directly on verbal communication instead of written confessions. For example, in Wainwright v. Greenfield, the Supreme Court ruled that silence is never the same as an outright confession, and cannot be utilized as evidence against the defendant (Worrall 2007). Under the exclusionary rule in the courtroom, an interrogation and confession are valid only if three requirements are met. It must be obtained willingly; it must be verbal; and the evidence surrounding it must not conflict with the defendant’s own out-of-court confession (Worrall 2007). Finally, the exclusionary rule covers the fruit of the poisonous tree argument. Through the exclusionary rule, “the Court has held that physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is admissible, as long as the information supplied by the accused was voluntary in the due process sense” (Worrall 2007). Thus, the exclusionary rule would not apply and the evidence would be deemed valid.

The Fourth