Facing criminal charges necessitates action. Your aspirations and future are on the line, and if you do not defend yourself, the consequences of a conviction will likely last a lifetime. Understanding your charges, the evidence and the ensuing court process is vital to reclaiming your life. You may be able to develop a defense strategy if there is evidence that should be inadmissible.
You may be wondering what exactly this means. If evidence is inadmissible, the prosecution cannot use it against you in court. A prosecutor may try to build a case against you using proof that is unfair, and the following three kinds of evidence are just a few examples that may be inadmissible.
1. Tampered or destroyed
According to the Washington Post, the government has been in hot water several times due to destroying and disappearing evidence. This happens at a local level, too, when individuals are facing criminal charges and law enforcement or prosecution seeks to bolster their case. Evidence that someone has tampered with—or partially destroyed if it is useful to the defense—is likely not admissible in court.
2. Questionable custody
In order to achieve a conviction, the prosecution should be able to easily prove the chain of custody for a piece of evidence. If law enforcement officers find drugs on your person, for example, they must thoroughly document the seizure, transfer and investigation of the evidence. If they do not follow procedure correctly, it can invalidate the evidence that prosecution is attempting to use against you.
3. Irrelevant and unreliable
One tactic used by the prosecution is distraction. If the hearing can be muddled with irrelevant and confusing information, it makes the defense far more difficult to build. Sometimes, prosecutors will attempt to do exactly this by introducing irrelevant or unreliable evidence that is supposedly useful to the case. If it bears no benefit to the defense or prosecution, though, it should not receive attention in court.