This is an extract of our Evidence Intro Relevance And Admissibility document, which we sell as part of our Evidence I: Foundations Notes collection written by the top tier of University College Dublin students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence I: Foundations Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
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?
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?
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.
All evidence admitted must be relevant to the case
The rest will not be admissible
DPP v Kilbourne
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence I: Foundations Notes.