Admissibility Of Evidence
Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility of evidence refers to whether evidence presented during a trial can be considered by the judge or jury in deciding the case. Not all evidence gathered is automatically admissible; it must meet certain legal standards to ensure fairness, reliability, and relevance.
Key Principles of Admissibility:
Relevance: Evidence must relate directly to the facts in dispute.
Materiality: Evidence must be significant and have a legitimate influence on the case.
Competence: Evidence must be legally obtained and not violate laws or rights.
Reliability: The evidence should be trustworthy and credible.
Exclusionary Rules: Certain evidence may be excluded for reasons such as hearsay, prejudice, or violation of rights (e.g., illegally obtained evidence).
Landmark Cases on Admissibility of Evidence
1. Mapp v. Ohio (1961, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Police searched Dollree Mapp’s home without a warrant and found obscene materials, which were used as evidence.
Legal Issue:
Can illegally obtained evidence be admitted in state courts?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) is inadmissible in state courts (exclusionary rule).
Significance:
Established the exclusionary rule in state courts.
Protected constitutional rights by barring illegally obtained evidence.
2. R v. Sang (1980, UK House of Lords)
Facts:
The defendant argued that confessions were coerced and thus inadmissible.
Legal Issue:
What standards govern the admissibility of confessions?
Judgment:
The House of Lords established that confessions must be voluntary to be admissible.
Significance:
Set the voluntariness test for admissibility of confessions.
Ensured protection against coercive police tactics.
3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Plaintiffs sought to introduce scientific expert testimony linking a drug to birth defects.
Legal Issue:
What standard governs admissibility of expert scientific evidence?
Judgment:
The Court established the Daubert standard, requiring that expert evidence must be relevant, reliable, and based on scientifically valid reasoning.
Significance:
Modernized the standard for admitting expert scientific evidence.
Courts act as gatekeepers for scientific reliability.
4. R v. Turner (1975, UK)
Facts:
The prosecution introduced statements made by the accused to the police, challenged as hearsay.
Legal Issue:
Are statements by the accused admissible if self-incriminating?
Judgment:
The court held that statements made by the accused, if voluntary, are admissible as evidence against them.
Significance:
Clarified rules on admissibility of the accused’s own statements.
Balanced self-incrimination concerns with prosecution needs.
5. Miranda v. Arizona (1966, U.S. Supreme Court)
Facts:
Ernesto Miranda confessed to crimes without being informed of his rights.
Legal Issue:
Must suspects be informed of their rights for statements to be admissible?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their right to silence and counsel (Miranda rights), otherwise statements may be inadmissible.
Significance:
Protected suspects against self-incrimination.
Established procedural safeguards for admissibility of confessions.
6. R v. Gopal Raj (India, 1969)
Facts:
Question of admissibility of confessions made to police officers under duress.
Legal Issue:
Are confessions to police officers admissible?
Judgment:
Supreme Court of India held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible unless recorded in accordance with legal safeguards.
Significance:
Strengthened protections against forced confessions.
Affirmed strict rules on police interrogation evidence.
7. R v. Turnbull (1977, UK)
Facts:
Concerns about the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence.
Legal Issue:
How should courts handle eyewitness identification evidence?
Judgment:
The court issued guidelines for judges to warn juries about the dangers of mistaken identification.
Significance:
Addressed reliability issues in eyewitness testimony.
Ensured fair treatment of identification evidence.
Summary
Evidence must be relevant, material, competent, and reliable to be admissible.
Courts exclude evidence obtained illegally or unfairly to protect constitutional and procedural rights.
Special rules govern confessions, expert testimony, and eyewitness identification.
Landmark rulings have shaped modern evidence law to balance justice and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments