Plain Error In Court Case

Plain error can help a substantive right angle in the defense for the introduction of improper presentation. In the battle of inadmissible evidence a jury trial will be deemed necessary for the case. The jury case will ultimately provide the possibility of any evidence to be thrown out and therefore should take notice to plain error. The main predominance in this case suggest that even though evidence was found to be exclusively vital to the case it can also be legally fought for the evidence to be inadmissible. For example, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 236 “police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of

obscene pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, and eventually took her appeal to United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts.” (Courts, 2015).
One of the most challenging procedures is controlling the jury decision by persuasive defense; Fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine will be applied to this case and advocating between the boundaries of constitution rights and clarifying documentation must rectify the burden of proof.

The exclusionary rule will also be exercised to this case and may be executed during trial. The exclusionary rule will help provide an alternate introduction in order to help prosecution as the opposed secondary use of Habeas corpus will reexamine his case in the event of an appeal provided he plead to the charges under the introduction of a conditional plea if prosecuted by the use of relevant evidence. In order to make his appeal and as a legal assistant I would create also ensure the abundance in forward mobility by a subpoena in order to have alternative solution for a much needed case success. Compulsory process will be needed in order to show just how applying prima facie and the fifth amendment will work together to develop ,construct and impose striking arguments to the exclusionary rule. Law of evidence will help assertion in the jury case and help limit the narration or rebut in during their

testimony.
The next question in challenging the case is, How does the concept of “fruit of the poisonous tree apply in this case? And how will the defense team turn it around during the preliminary hearing? The evidence was based on both search and seizures which violated the due process and fourth amendment.
The evidence should be declared tainted, thus redeeming it inadmissible for example, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 236 any evidence that may already been exposed should remain intact to the point that the judge will make a determination just on those facts. Derivative evidence or fruits of the poisonous tree can and will be replicated during trial so it will absolutely important that the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments are directly applied carefully during the cross examination in order to show the jury exactly what created the chain of events that developed in the accused defendant for example; Douglas v. Alabama (1965) 380 U.S. 415. Court unanimously rules that admission of a non-testifying accomplice’s hearsay confession, which implicated the defendant as the shooter in an assault with intent to commit murder, was a violation of Confrontation Clause due to lack of cross-examination. When declarant accuses another in circumstances in which declarant stands to gain, accusation is presumptively suspect. in order to show the jury exactly what created the chain of events that developed in the accused individual. (Kresser, 1999).
Circumstantial evidence