Search results
Oct 28, 2024 · This article argues that the tug-of-war between fairness and efficiency in the context of the exclusion of evidence can be resolved with the help of relevant tribunal duties, which should guide the exercise of tribunal discretion.
The basic rule of evidence which forms the starting point for all else is, “all evidence relevant to a fact in issue is admissible unless there is a legal reason for excluding it”.6 There are three elements to this initial analysis: 1. Is the evidence relevant? The evidence must be logically probative of the fact for which it is
the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Cases (1982) 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1365, 1394-6. Most of the views expressed on the Exclusionary Rule depend, in the end, on an act of faith or on ideological considerations: see Sunderland, Liberals, Conservatives and the Exclusionary Rule (1980) 71 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 343, 375-7.
- Legal Systems Based on The “System Integrity” Rationale
- Legal Systems Based on The “Deterrence” Rationale
- Legal Systems Based on The Human Rights Rationale
- Mixed Systems
Canada and Israel are examples of legal systems that ground their exclusionary rule on a systemic integrity analysis.Footnote 45Consistent with expectations, both systems apply a multi-factor, balancing test in deciding whether to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence. Empirical studies of rates of exclusion, however, suggest that the Canadian balan...
In the United States, the exclusionary rule is based on a deterrence-oriented analysis. Consistent with the expectation of the model, the U.S. approach is relatively rule-bound and categorical, at least when compared with the more flexible balancing used in other jurisdictions.Footnote 59If the police violate the Constitution, the exclusionary rule...
Greece is an example of a legal system regarding exclusion of evidence as a means of vindicating fundamental individual rights.Footnote 70 Article 177 § 2 of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure provides that evidence obtained through a criminal act must not be used in court, except in favor of the accused. More specifically, Article 19 § 3 of the ...
Several legal systems have refrained from defining a single rationale for their exclusionary rules. Three of the countries discussed in this volume—Switzerland, Germany, and Taiwan—are examples of such hybrid systems. The German and Swiss models have been grounded on the need to vindicate individual rights as well as to protect the rule of law. In ...
- Jenia Iontcheva Turner, Thomas Weigend
- 2019
exclusionary rules in the law of evidence as turning on the question of relevance only. Such an approach, while having the merit of sim-plicity, is clearly distracting. It involves labelling as irrelevant much evidence which is rationally probative. It is of no predictive value in
Where the results are exculpatory, the Act stated that the court shall grant the applicant’s motion for a new trial or re-sentencing if the test results and other evidence establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal.
People also ask
What are the rationales for excluding relevant evidence?
How do we justify the exclusion of relevant evidence?
Should jury-control rationales be underpinning evidence law?
Does exclusion of evidence promote the rule of law?
What are the legal rules for excluding evidence?
Are exclusionary rules based on more than one rationale?
evidence rules may indeed be justified on jury-control grounds even if a single judge would fare no better than a jury at analyzing the evidence. The real question is whether a particular evidentiary doctrine can counteract some weakness in jury reasoning and improve the accuracy of jury verdicts. In general, that question can be
