Admissibility of Evidence at Trial 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?

Part of the search for justice is making sure that the evidence admitted at trial satisfies the constitutional criteria distinguishing admissible evidence from inadmissible evidence. In large part, the rules of evidence in a criminal trial are expressly designed to protect the constitutional rights of persons suspected of criminal activity by the police. If there were no such rules, it would be difficult if not impossible to control the ways that police secured evidence on the street. In fact, prior to the modern era of American criminal justice, police routinely arrested suspects without probable cause, deprived them of counsel,

The only remedy to prevent evidence seized in violation of constitutional rights is to exclude that evidence from introduction at trial. So, it is not as much the intention of the applicable restrictions that jurors be deprived of evidence that is potentially relevant (Schmalleger, 2010). Rather, the intention is to remove the natural incentive of police and prosecutors to obtain evidence outside of the rules necessary to protect the accused. Even where evidence is seized constitutionally, judges still have an important role in determining whether introducing that evidence is likely to lead to a just outcome. In that regard, the standard used by judges is whether the "probative value" of the evidence is greater than its "prejudicial effect" (Zalman, 2008).
How reliable is the internet for factual reports about the people, places, and events that might influence a juror's decision to convict? Is Facebook or Twitter a valid source to form an opinion about the…