#17494 - Evidence Intro Relevance And Admissibility - Evidence I: Foundations

JURIES Mistrusting a jury:Secrecy No documents produced No penalty for a wrong decision Prejudice, irrationality, bias. How can we be sure that these people will be trusted? Fidelity? This is the guiding philosophy of the role of evidence - trusting a jury. • • • • • • • • If there is powerful evidence of oppression in confession the jury may not be told that the confession even occurred It's all about controlling evidence - admissibility. Strict controls over what is revealed and what is concealed 'disregard what you have just heard'. You can't delete it from your brain. By being told to forget something, It actually lodges it even further into your head. So, if evidence is unfair or prejudicial - the jury should not be told about it in the first place. The majority of cases now don't even have a jury present. Should we relax the exclusionary rule? •- Still necessary 1. Provide a focus 2. on the trial 3. Save time If something is marginally unfair it is thought to be better just to exclude it entirely Saving time is one of the main pillars of our law of evidence 4. Trials more likely to be fair 5. Protect integrity of verdicts. Copper faceting verdicts. RELEVANCE • • • All evidence admitted must be relevant to the case The rest will not be admissible Relevant? DPP v Kilbourne Lord Simon