From the context of law, evidence is any facts or pieces of information that are produced in a court to support a legal proceeding. Based on the extent to which a case is supported by evidence, it may be termed as being weak or strong. While arguing any case, it is critical for parties on both sides to give facts and information that could prove that they are legally right. A case that does not have admissible evidence is a weak one.

Your 20% discount here!

Use your promo and get a custom paper on
Criminal Evidence

Order Now
Promocode: SAMPLES20

Three types of evidence are common in legal proceedings. First, testimonial evidence that a witness gives by making statements or declaring facts. It is worth to state that a witness that is ready to give testimonial evidence should be subjected to an oath, which is intended to ensure that he or she does not lie in the process of giving a testimony. An example of a testimony is when a person offers a first-hand recount of the events that led to an accident. Such evidence could be essential for the jury to decide whether the driver would be convicted of any wrongdoing.

Second, physical object could also be applied to support a legal proceeding. It is used in the presumption that it plays a critical role in the issues that led to the litigation. An example is the written contract. If two business enterprises enter into an agreement, they adopt a written contract that specifies all terms in the covenant. If either party does not own his obligations, a legal suit may be the result, and the written contract may serve as evidence. Finally, documents may be also used as proof to argue a case. For example, when a person is accused of forging transactions, the prosecution may produce the forged documents as proof.

The US Constitution is typified by a framework of checks and balances that aims at ensuring that the three arms f the government work independently, but while consulting each other. For illustration, federal laws are drafted, debated, and passed by the Congress. After they are passed, the President should sign them so that they can become a part of the US laws. However, the judicial branch, which is also typified by the judicial criminal system, has the Constitutional authority of deciding whether the passed laws can be adopted on the Constitutional platform. If the judicial criminal system finds that some laws are associated with disputes, it can resolve them. That notwithstanding, judges in the judicial criminal system rely on the executive to execute court decisions.

It may be argued that the established checks and balances may negatively impact the judicial criminal system since it depends on the decisions from other arms of the national government. For example, judges may be in need of laws that would help to curb the rising rates of terrorism in America, which can only be created, debated, and passed by the Congress, and assented to by the Presidency. Thus, if the Presidency and the Congress do not provide the antiterrorism laws in a timely manner, then the criminal system may not help to convict them found guilty of participating in terrorism.

Another scenario is when the judiciary makes court decisions to curb terrorism in the nation, which can be implemented by the executive. Sometimes, this branch of the federal government may execute court decisions at a slow pace, which implies that the judiciary may be discouraged to make decisions that are geared toward making America a safe nation in which citizens and visitors can be comfortable. From the illustrations, it could be reasonable to state that the Constitutional checks and balances might be impending the roles of the judicial criminal system.

A suppression hearing is aimed at allowing a judge or a bench of judges to decide whether some pieces of evidence can be admissible in court. In most cases, this occurs if lawyers think that the police violated the rights of their clients in the process f collecting evidence. It is worth to state that the hearing is conducted on Constitutional grounds. Such a motion is held before the commencement of the trial, and the defense attorney initiates it. At the hearing, the two sides of the case make their presentations. The defense attorney begins the hearing to do away with the evidence that is intended to be used in the legal proceeding. He or she gives facts that are aimed at disputing the constitutionality of the evidence. In addition, the prosecutor also makes his or her arguments in defense of the legal information.

The process of making legal arguments is termed as a brief. Thus, many legal briefs may characterize a suppression hearing. For instance, if the victim was arrested, the prosecutor makes the first brief that gives the legal reasons for the arrest implemented by the police. He or she, for instance, may argue that the failing to arrest the suspect could have allowed him or her to commit more crimes in society. After he or she submits his or her brief, the defense attorney counters the legal submission by detailing how the law enforcers could have acted outside the provisions of the Constitution by arresting the victim. In most cases, the defense attorney argues that his client’s rights were breached. Afterward, the judge makes a ruling whether the evidence is supported by the Constitution to be used in the trial. If the prosecution losses, then new evidence may be sought to support the case.