Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Legal Precedents and Illegal Proceedings. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper gives four examples where improper procedures, not lack of evidence, ruined a case, and whether the arguments used were correct. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVLegPrc.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
police use improper methods in their investigations. This paper argues about several examples where improper procedures, not lack of evidence, ruined a case, and whether the court reached the proper
decision in each instance. Discussion Well first briefly summarize the salient points in each case, and then answer questions about appropriate actions regarding the matter. In the first case, U.S.
v. Crew, a young woman was robbed, saw her assailant clearly, and later identified him both from photos and in a line-up. She also identified him in court. However,
the salient fact here is the sentence, "Three days later, a young man (Crain) was improperly and illegally detained." He was tried for armed robbery and subsequently convicted, and then
appealed using the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine as his rationale for doing so. The question is whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm his conviction, and
if her in-court identification should stand. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine says that if the main evidence is poisonous (tainted), then any evidence or other matter derived from
it will also be tainted (Search and seizure: A guide to rules, requirements, tests, doctrines, and exceptions, 2006-hereafter Search and seizure, 2006). The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine follows
from the "Exclusionary Rule," which says basically that "evidence illegally obtained cannot be legally admitted" (Search and seizure, 2006). The "poisonous tree" goes a bit further, stating that "not only
is evidence illegally seized inadmissible, but any evidence or testimony obtained later as a result of the illegally seized evidence is inadmissible" (Search and seizure, 2006). Its difficult to see
how that could apply here. Presumably the defendant appealed because of his illegal arrest, and would argue that the photos taken subsequent to that arrest were poisoned because the arrest
...