This article was written by Leela Madhuri of the 9th semester of BA.LLB of G.S.K.M Law College affiliated with Adikavi Nannya University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Abstract:
Criminal factors such as cultural origin, faith, and financial status are regarded inadmissible in court owing to their problematic nature and essential presumptions. These variables hold significant implications for the outcome of a case and can be declared inadmissible in court. Crime-related factors, including mental health, can significantly impact the legal process, potentially leading to biased judgments and prejudice. These elements are frequently eliminated to ensure neutrality, guaranteeing a focus on individual instances. Maintaining legal integrity requires balancing transparency and individual rights. This blog article delves into the unsaid difficulties underlying these elements, their impact on trials, and possible solutions to establish a fair and equitable criminal justice system. Considering these inadmissible circumstances will assist in guaranteeing that a person charged with an offense receives fair and reasonable outcomes.
Keywords:
Crime, Court, Law of Evidence, Admissible Evidence, Inadmissible Evidence, The Criminal Justice System, Psychological factors, Witness Credibility, and Fairness.
Introduction:
Crime-related elements play a significant role in the criminal justice system, evaluating guilt or innocence and ensuring justice is done. However, not all types of evidence are admissible in court due to legal considerations. The rules of evidence are in place to ensure fairness, defend constitutional rights, and protect the judicial process’s integrity. When investigating crime-related variables that are inadmissible in court, the standard of relevance must be used. Evidence must be closely connected to the case and probative, allowing the jury or judge to present only relevant facts while avoiding excessive impact from unrelated or prejudiced considerations. The judicial system protects convicted privileges by omitting specific information, like criminal records or character evidence, to avoid improper prejudice and influenced verdicts, which might undermine the legitimate pursuit of truth if such material were included. This article explores the legal regulations that govern the admission of crime-related evidence in criminal cases. It examines the difficulties of the admissibility of evidence, underlining the influence on the criminal justice system.
Understanding admissible and inadmissible evidence:
Understanding the difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence is critical in judicial processes. Admissible evidence is any evidence that can be presented and considered during a legal proceeding. It is usually regarded as trustworthy, significant, and attained legally. Tangible assets, such as documents, images, or objects, along with endorsements from witnesses or experts, serve as examples of admissible evidence. Inadmissible evidence, on the other hand, refers to information or materials that cannot be offered in court. Various reasons may deem evidence invalid, such as constitutional rights violations, improper collection methods, or lack of relevancy [1]. Understanding these distinctions is critical for operating the legal system effectively. For example, hearsay evidence (an invalid statement given to support the accuracy of a claim) is commonly viewed as irrelevant. Hearsay evidence is weak, reliant on someone else’s knowledge of an occurrence, and merely acceptable if there is solid, confirmed proof [2]. This happens because such claims are frequently deemed untrustworthy and do not allow cross-examination. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as where the observation comes within the specified hearsay exemption or achieves a non-hearsay objective. Evidence gathered illegally in violation of the Fourth Amendment is forbidden, discouraging authorities from participating in unlawful behaviors and assuring evidence validity. Understanding the difference between admissible and inadmissible evidence is critical in judicial procedures because it assures equality, confidence, and respect for justice ideals. This understanding assists in constructing and defending cases within the legal obstacles, providing the validity of evidence.
Examine specific crime-related factors that should not be presented in court:
A crime is a public offense punished by legislation or general law, with certain lesser crimes seeking no motive to commit. Judges represent the government, and crimes are classified as offenses or wrongdoings before being judged under criminal legal procedures [3]. Certain crime-related factors within the judiciary should not be introduced in court, as they may influence verdicts, infringe upon the defendant’s rights, and obstruct the fair administration of justice. A defendant’s previous wrongdoing or criminal background should not be mentioned in court to prevent making prejudiced conclusions about their personality. Prosecutors should avoid presenting evidence or arguments that aim solely at targeting the defendant’s or victim’s character, instead focusing on the details of the case compared to personal assaults. This keeps the jury from reaching mistaken conclusions about the defendant’s personality. Racial or ethnic views should not be brought into court since they might spark emotions and influence the jury, resulting in discriminatory verdicts. Hearsay evidence, or statements made by non-witnesses, should not be allowed owing to its lack of dependability and cross-examination chances.
Controversial evidence or terminology, such as clear or brutal facts, should be prohibited in court. Statements performed illegally, such as through pressure, abuse, or the breach of a defendant’s rights, should not be introduced since they are tainted and untrustworthy. Confidential interactions, such as attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges, should not be made public in court owing to their secrecy [4]. Polygraph results, whose validity is debatable among specialists, are often inadmissible in court because of several conditions. Non-expert witnesses should only provide factual information they are familiar with rather than offering opinions or assumptions in court. Judges must carefully assess prejudicial evidence to ensure a fair trial, thereby upholding the integrity and fairness of the case. Personal or sensitive information regarding those who are not necessary for the case should not be revealed in court to respect their confidentiality. Past physical conduct or reputation of a rape victim may be prohibited as testimony in some countries to avert victim-blaming. A defendant’s mental health history should not be disclosed except if it closely relates to their ability to conduct the supposed offense or their mental condition at the time of the crime. Information concerning pleading agreements or talks should not be mentioned in court. Eroding a lawsuit can result in unfair outcomes because it affects the validity of the judiciary by offering only fair and accurate facts to the jury, thus challenging the protection of individual rights and the pursuit of justice.
The legal and ethical reasons for excluding these crime-related factors in court:
Excluding some crime-related factors from consideration in court is a legal and ethical approach aimed at maintaining a fair and reasonable judicial procedure while protecting the privileges of individuals engaged in criminal cases. Crime-related elements, such as past convictions or other wrongdoing, might distract attention from specific accusations and result in biased verdicts. Excluding these elements keeps the focus on significant evidence, preventing unjustified bias and protecting the defendant’s right to a fair trial. It further protects the accused’s fundamental rights, such as a fair trial, the right to stay reserved [5], and immunity from self-incrimination. Allowing unnecessary crime-related facts might result in character assassination since courts want to prevent prosecutions centered on a defendant’s overall character rather than particular accusations. Therefore, it is essential to refrain from introducing such variables to uphold the presumption of innocence and guarantee an impartial evaluation of the evidence. Fairness and justice, establishing a more equitable legal system, and minimizing harm are all ethical justifications for exclusion. Courts face a duty to safeguard anyone associated with a case from needless injury or trauma. This includes removing certain crime-related circumstances that might cause harm, harassment, or excessive stress to witnesses, victims, and defendants. Courts must strike a delicate balance between uncovering the truth and safeguarding the integrity of the legal system, all while upholding the core principles of a just society.
About the delicate balance between relevance and prejudice:
When reviewing a defendant’s previous criminal record, the delicate balancing act between validity and bias presents an obstacle for the judiciary. While it can give information on a defendant’s illegal activity, it can also unduly influence the jury’s perspective, thus leading to a biased verdict. In jurisdictions, severe guidelines prevent individuals from concentrating exclusively on a defendant’s prior criminal history rather than the evidence in the present case because the admissibility of a defendant’s past differs. Fear of innocent prisoners being convicted haunts the criminal system, and the praise of legal issues may set innocent individuals free [6]. Courts must balance the reliability of a defendant’s former criminal history with the possibility of improper jury influence. Because of their capacity for criminal behavior, similar past offenses may raise the chance of admission. The admission of relevant previous convictions, including those unrelated to the current case, may be limited in this particular case. Courts may apply these limits to ensure a fair trial for the defendant, even if the adverse impact far exceeds the probative value. The balance between relevancy and bias in a defendant’s criminal past is critical for a fair legal system. The judiciary has to consider the benefits and drawbacks of evidence so that fairness is served without harming the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
When misconduct taints the admissibility of evidence:
Police misconduct, which is an important issue, may have a considerable influence on the admission of evidence in court. It can express itself in several ways, including forceful racism, evidence planting, and fabricating reports. Such misconduct not only violates the rights of the accused but also undermines the credibility of the evidence collected, undermining the integrity of the evidence. The exclusion rule, a legal concept arising from the Fourth Amendment, prohibits the application of evidence gained illegally, protecting individuals’ rights and prohibiting unauthorized evidence from being used in lawsuits. Police misconduct, especially in criminal investigations, exposes the use of false or misleading evidence that damages innocent persons or suppresses actual evidence, highlighting the frequent problem of police abuse [7]. Defending attorneys may object to testimony tainted by police misconduct, claiming it was obtained illegally or violated the defendant’s constitutional rights. To evaluate legality, authorities execute detailed inspections, taking into factors such as the significance of the wrongdoing, its influence on evidence, and the fairness of the judicial process. The court’s principal purpose is to guarantee a fair trial so that judgment is delivered for the defendant. Addressing police abuse is critical for sustaining public faith in the judiciary and assuring the trustworthiness, integrity, and legality of evidence presented in court. Misconduct can have broad impacts, such as tainting the admissibility of evidence and raising concerns about the fairness of the legal process and the integrity of the criminal justice system. Recognizing and dealing with police wrongdoing can contribute to a more just and equal society.
The impact of inadmissible evidence on the criminal justice system:
Judges are inspired to fix situations where inadmissible evidence breaches due process by utilizing information equitably and harmonizing verdicts with what the judge says, even though reactions, opposing criticism, and probative information can alter motivation and effectiveness [8]. In court operations, inadmissible evidence is especially significant as it can lead to infringement of constitutional rights, incorrect gathering techniques, or a lack of dependability. The court’s main objective is to provide a fair trial, yet evidence may be found incompetent for certain circumstances owing to these considerations. The exclusion of inadmissible evidence can significantly impact a case’s outcome, impairing prosecutors’ ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or the defense’s ability to present a compelling case. This evidence often contains crucial information that could influence the jury’s decision. Excluding inadmissible evidence from criminal cases is critical for preserving the validity of the criminal justice system and guaranteeing fairness. This protects the accused’s rights and assures trustworthy, relevant, and lawful evidence. Inadmissible evidence, on the other hand, has a broader impact, undermining public faith in the system. When critical evidence is withheld, society challenges the system’s impartiality and dependability, causing a loss of trust in the judiciary and the sense that justice is not being served. The absence of inadmissible evidence in criminal cases can be a significant difficulty for the judiciary and prosecutors, as they may need other approaches to create a solid case or uncover more admissible evidence. This may be difficult and costly, yet it may result in proceedings being dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Balancing justice with constitutional rights is a difficult task that demands ongoing examination and development of evidence rules.
What are the possible alternatives or improvements to the current system regarding crime-related factors in court:
The criminal justice system is crucial for societal order and justice, yet it constantly needs improvement and adaptation to tackle emerging challenges and promote fairness. Updating risk assessment techniques can assist in eliminating psychological biases in calculating the likelihood of individual reoffending. Regular updates to these technologies accommodate social changes and crime trends, preventing biases and mistakes from becoming fixed in the evaluation process. Pre-trial Custody Regulation seeks to minimize dependence on monetary bail by promoting alternatives such as supervised release, electronic monitoring, or community work for nonviolent criminals. Risk-based bail choices create a system in which bail choices are made based on an individual’s risk of fleeing or endangering the community rather than their financial capabilities. Community-Based Sentencing and Restorative Justice Programmes are being introduced to deal with the issue of offending. It seeks to heal the harm that criminals have caused by involving victims and communities. Diversion programs are being increased to encourage low-level criminals to find social services. In legal procedures, transparency and witness protection are critical. Witness protection schemes are being improved to encourage more people to testify without fear of retribution [9]. Legal and psychological assistance is offered for the mental health of witnesses throughout the legal procedure. In criminal proceedings, these approaches encourage openness and accountability. Criminal justice personnel’s expertise is critical in creating understanding and supporting a broad spectrum of cultural viewpoints. Collaboration among policymakers, legal experts, and stakeholders is critical for improving the management of crime-related elements.
Case Laws:
The following are some relevant case laws:
- State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai [10]:
In this case, the Supreme Court of India stated the eligibility requirements for digital evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. The court ruled that electronic evidence, such as emails and computer printouts, can be allowed in court if provided with a certificate from a competent individual.
- Hanumant Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [11]:
This case addressed the constitutionality of extra-judicial statements. The court concluded that extrajudicial confessions are admissible in courts specified they are voluntary and given without any incentive, pressure, or promise.
- Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. [12]:
The Indian Supreme Court has declared that hearsay testimony is untrustworthy and should not be used in court. Hearsay evidence is a statement given by an individual who has not appeared in court, making cross-examination difficult. The court cited three reasons for this: it is not offered by someone who has direct knowledge of the facts, it dilutes the truth, and it may be used to conduct fraud or distort facts. The decision is intended to maintain the court process’s integrity and to ensure a fair trial for all parties concerned. The present case Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. highlighted these reasons.
- Mapp v. Ohio [13]:
The US Supreme Court decided that evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state prosecution for a state offense, which was previously solely relevant to criminal proceedings but is now also enforceable in civil actions.
- The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial [14]:
Inadmissible evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal conduct, such as unrelated incidents of violence, is often used to prevent the jury from making decisions based on these incidents. For instance, in the O.J. Simpson trial, Simpson’s prior domestic violence incidents were typically excluded to avoid biasing the jury.
Conclusion:
The Indian Evidence Act has seen substantial changes in legal jurisprudence and plays a critical part in modern technology, yet it is sometimes neglected in litigation. The courtroom should exclude crime-related factors like a defendant’s criminal history, unverified information, irrelevant personal details, hearsay evidence, emotionally charged content, and polygraph test results to ensure fairness and impartiality in justice. This delicate balance between respecting the rights of the accused and pursuing the truth is critical for sustaining societal justice norms. Excluding specific information to protect against potential infringement of individual rights is one of the current challenges in the legal system. To maintain the relationship between fairness and equity, legal scholars, policymakers, and the community must constantly evaluate and change evidential norms. Understanding inadmissible crime-related variables in court aids in understanding the legal criteria guiding evidence presentation. Striking this balance guarantees a society that respects and protects individual rights in the criminal justice system.
References:
- Evidence: The Concept of “Admissibility”
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/evidence-the-concept-of-admissibility.html
- What Is Considered Admissible vs. Inadmissible?
https://www.malloy-law.com/what-is-considered-admissible-vs-inadmissible/
- Criminal Justice System
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/criminal-justice-system
- Factors Considered in Determining Sentences
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/factors-considered-in-determining-sentences.html
- Admissibility of Evidence in India and England
- Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403
- Uncharged Misconduct Under Rule 404(b): The Admissibility of Inextricably Intertwined Evidence
- The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16906469/
- Direct and Indirect Effects of Inadmissible Evidence
[1] What Does It Mean for Evidence to Be Inadmissible, https://www.lnlegal.com/blog/2023/june/what-does-it-mean-for-evidence-to-be-inadmissibl/ (Last visited on 24 September 2023).
[2] What Makes Evidence Inadmissible in A Criminal Case, https://toumalawgroup.com/what-makes-evidence-inadmissible/ (Last visited 24 September 2023).
[3] Crime, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime#:~:text=The%20elements%20of%20a%20crime,deserving%20of%20punishment%20or%20penalty. (Last visited on 24 September 2023).
[4] Admissibility of Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, https://blog.ipleaders.in/admissibility-of-evidence-under-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/#:~:text=The%20evidence%20which%20is%20unfairly,photograph%20around%20the%20victim’s%20body. (Last visited on 24 September 2023).
[5] Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Law Cases, https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/admissibility-evidence/ (Last visited on 24 September 2023).
[6] Prejudice-Based Rights in Criminal Procedure, https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2377&context=fac_articles_chapters (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[7] Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent, https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[8] Criminal Justice, https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/ (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[9] Revitalizing Indian Criminal Justice System, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/revitalising-indian-criminal-justice-system#:~:text=Restorative%20Justice%3A%20Identifying%20the%20rights,a%20step%20towards%20restorative%20justice. (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[10] State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai Case Summary 2003 SC, https://lawplanet.in/state-of-maharashtra-vs-praful-b-desai/ (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[11] Hanumant Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, https://xpertslegal.com/blog/the-indian-evidence-act-1872/#:~:text=M.,pointed%20to%20no%20other%20conclusion. (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[12] Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr, https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/560910b9e4b0149711182566 (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[13] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/ (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
[14] The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial, https://westportlibrary.libguides.com/OJSimpson#:~:text=The%20O.J.&text=Simpson%20trial%20was%20a%20criminal,criminal%20trials%20in%20American%20history. (Last visited on 25 September 2023).
0 Comments