Understanding how evidence exclusion works in criminal trials in Canada can be quite important, especially if you’re involved in a case. A Brampton criminal lawyer can help explain these rules. Here’s a simple breakdown of the topic.
What is Evidence Exclusion?
Evidence exclusion is when some evidence or proof cannot be considered for a trial. When evidence is taken by the police or others acting and plausibly alleged to be in law enforcement, it is mainly within Canada’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 24(2).
Why is Evidence Excluded?
Fairness
The court also wishes to guarantee the fairness of trials. Where evidence is presented that might make the trial unfair or seem unreasonable, that evidence should be excluded.
Public Trust
If it is shown that some evidence may lead people to lose confidence in the justice system, that evidence may be excluded as well. The objective is to maintain the integrity and fairness of the court system.
How Does the Process Work?
At the start of a trial, an experienced criminal lawyer can request the judge not to admit some evidence by making a motion.
The judge will see all the facts and decide whether to admit or exclude the evidence. They consider:
- How the evidence was collected.
- Whether excluding it will be unfair to the trial.
- There is a need to maintain public confidence in the court system.
Factors Considered: The judge thinks about several things:
- Was the evidence obtained legally?
- How would using it prejudice the trial fairness?
- Can similar information be obtained without violating any laws?
Weakening the Prosecution’s Case
As evidence is excluded, it becomes more difficult for the prosecution (the party arguing that a person has done something wrong) to make their case. For instance, when the police recover a device containing a weapon, although it wasn’t properly seized with a search warrant, that device may not be admissible. With it, the case can be a lot easier for the prosecutor to prove that the accused person has committed a crime.
Potential Acquittal
However, if too much relevant evidence is discarded, it may result in an acquittal, not allowing the person on trial to be declared guilty. The judge or jury must have sufficiently solid evidence to have a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. They might have to release them for free if they don’t have one.
Impact on Defense Strategy
The defence lawyer dealing with the case (party seeking to benefit the defendant) can exploit the exclusion of evidence. They could claim that there is good reason for a jury to doubt their client’s culpability without particular proof. This can give them an edge over their adversary in the case they argue.
Legal Precedent
Excluding evidence will also likely set a legal standard for future cases. When a judge finds that some evidence should not be considered to have been obtained unfairly, this may also affect how complex related cases are dealt with for future cases.
Emotional and Psychological Effects
Victims and defendants on the same side of the bar may find evidence exclusion at some point frustrating and relieving. It may influence how they think and feel about the justice system and its fairness.
Conclusion
In Canada, excluding evidence is crucial in ensuring that criminal trials are fair and equitable. Experienced attorneys can explain this, helping defendants understand their options and the impact the evidence will have on their cases. When the legal system is positive about the segregation of only good evidence, it seeks to defend the rights of all individuals and the trust in justice.
Tags: Brampton criminal lawyer