A pre-trial hearing is often scheduled after an accused’s first arraignment in court. A pre-trial hearing is intended to resolve and clarify any concerns before to court case such that it runs swiftly when held. In essence, pre-trial proceedings allow the parties to share relevant information and assess the case. A defense counsel can seek an application to exclude evidence that, if accepted, can impact the outcome of a case. This process is essential because it gives all sides a fair chance to know the circumstances of the case. Moreover, in the past, innocent people have been convicted based on falsified evidence or evidence acquired illegally.
The Federal Rules of Evidence determine which evidence may be presented in federal courts. Unlike the federal system, each state has its evidence laws (Ingram, 2021). When deciding whether or not to admit evidence, relevancy to the process is paramount. Any evidence that may increase or decrease the likelihood that a material fact exists is considered “relevant evidence” (Ingram, 2021). Relevant evidence may be omitted if there is a larger risk that it would cause the jury to be misled, confused, or unduly prejudiced against the accused than its evidentiary value. Additionally, the admissibility of evidence necessitates a specific degree of reliability. The U.S. Supreme Court has established guidelines for the admissibility of expert witness testimony in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) (DeMatteo et al., 2019). These guidelines apply to the application of such testimony in establishing or challenging the accuracy of ballistics, drug test outcomes, or computer forensics, among others.
The prosecution and the defense have the right to introduce evidence in criminal trials. In a court of law, the state’s responsibility is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the accused may provide evidence to refute the prosecution’s claims. Both parties should have a chance to examine the other’s evidence and raise any objections to it being presented in court before the trial begins. Defendants have the right to challenge the admissibility of evidence acquired by the government in contravention of their civil liberties, such as unreasonable searches and seizures, self-incrimination, and legal representation (Ingram, 2021). This explains why the pre-trial hearing is an essential process.
A classic example can be seen in the circumstances and outcome of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920). Silverthorne Lumber Company founders Frederick Silverthorne and his father were indicted for a single crime (Grant & Wischik, 2020). The authorities detained the Silverthornes when they were apprehended at their residences. Simultaneously, federal police officers illegally entered Lumber’s office and confiscated papers, books, and records. A request was submitted for the restitution of the stolen property. The United States documented its findings by photographing and copying relevant documents and drafting a new charge. The district court mandated the return of the primary documents while seizing the photographic evidence and any duplicates made (Grant & Wischik, 2020). Subpoenas demanding the original documents were delivered. The district court ruled that the Silverthornes’ civil rights had been violated by the seizure of the papers but compelled them to respond to the summons prompting them to appeal the ruling. U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling on appeal (Grant & Wischik, 2020). In other words, the government’s unlawful acquisition of the firm documents precluded it from using the information collected to build a new charge and utilize the evidence in a trial.
Pre-trial hearings are adversarial since the defense and the prosecution has attorneys available. The defendant is represented by an attorney who will argue against the prosecution’s case and present their evidence in court. The matter will go to trial if the judge determines sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Pre-trial hearings are essential since they allow the defendant to challenge evidence that may be unfair to their case.
References
DeMatteo, D., Fishel, S., & Tansey, A. (2019). Expert evidence: The (unfulfilled) promise of Daubert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(3), 129–134. Web.
Grant, T. D., & Wischik, D. J. (2020). Poisonous Datasets, Poisonous Trees. In On the path to AI (pp. 89-101). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Web.
Ingram, J. L. (2021). Criminal evidence. Routledge.