Evidence Admission and Suppression
EVIDENCE ADMISSION AND SUPPRESSION 2
Topic: Evidence Admission and Suppression
Each state has adopted a variety of rules regarding what facts are deemed proper evidence. Only what a
court deems admissible evidence may be considered in reaching a verdict of guilt or innocence. Evidence
that is suppressed because it was gathered in violation of the Constitution may have a profound impact
on the guilt of a defendant. However, the ability to limit what information a juror has access to is becoming
increasingly more difficult to control.
The prevalence of “smart-phones,” e-readers, tablets, and news feeds via gaming systems can result in
jurors gathering data about a defendant, victim, crime scene, or witness that was not even presented at
trial or specifically excluded by the court. This especially becomes a temptation when jurors are permitted
to go home when a trial stretches beyond a single day.
Thread:
If the goal for a trial is the search for justice, why should there be rules that limit a juror�s ability to render
a verdict only to that information gathered in compliance with the Constitution and approved by the judge?
Provide the scriptural, constitutional, and scholarly basis for your position.
Evidence Admission and Suppression
Jurors play a significant role in the legal system. In a criminal trial, they have the duty of
determining the guilt of the charged person basing upon the facts presented. The jury is required
to reach the verdict basing only on the evidence that has been presented in the court and in line
with the judge’s directions. Juror misconduct occurs where, while the trial is in progress, a
member of the jury communicates with those outside the trial including judges, bailiffs,
attorneys, witnesses, and the victim. It is a misconduct for a juror bring outside evidence into the
trial (Hannaford-Agor, Rottman & Waters, n.d.).
According to Strutin (2010), the information age has raised concerns as to the widened the scope
of juror misconduct. Most jurors get involved in online misbehavior, which include the
publication and distribution of information concerning the trial through such mediums as
Facebook and Twitter, creating contacts with judges, lawyers, and witnesses through social
media, discovering information concerning the case through the internet, making visits to virtual
EVIDENCE ADMISSION AND SUPPRESSION 3
crime scenes, as well as engaging in pre-mature discussions or deliberations concerning the
litigation or consulting outside opinions.
There are various cases that have been decided in relation to juror misconduct. In Lockwood v
State, 2010 WL 3529416 (Nev), the court ruled that a juror engaged in misconduct by consulting
eight to ten internet articles regarding the nature of the injuries of the victim and distributed her
findings to the other jurors in the course of deliberations. Similarly, in Oliver v. Quarterman, the
court held that the jurors’ use of the Bible to determine the sentencing of the offender during the
trial stage constituted improper external influence on the deliberations of the jurors. The jurors
applied the Biblical provisions that “thou shall not kill” and that the sentence for death is death.
Thus, it is evident that there is a possibility of external information affecting the deliberations of
the jurors and lead to miscarriage of justice. It is in the interests of justice that the jurors’ ability
to obtain external information be limited.
EVIDENCE ADMISSION AND SUPPRESSION 4
References
Hannaford-Agor, P., Rottman, D.B., & Waters, N.L. (n.d.). Juror and Jury Use of New Media: A
Baseline Exploration. Perspectives on State Court Leadership.
