controversial rules of evidence amp proposed changes

Prostate Cancer Screening for African American Men
August 2, 2020
Research Abstracts in Psychology due in 8 hours
August 2, 2020

Controversial Rules of Evidence and Proposed Changes with Case Analysis

For this assignment, you will submit a critical essay in which you:

  1. discuss controversial areas in evidence law;
  2. assess the specific Federal Rules of Evidence that are problematic within those controversial areas and then propose changes; and
  3. analyze the two cases you chose and analyzed in the Evidence Chart for your Module 7 Portfolio Milestone Assignment.

NOTE: In Module 7, you will complete your evidence chart. If you choose to complete Portfolio Project Option #2, you must also choose Portfolio Milestone Option #2 in Module 7. Visit the Module 7 folder for complete details on the Milestone assignment and to review its grading rubric.

Directions:

Some rules of evidence such as the Miranda warning are controversial, causing arguments over what would best serve the overall needs of society. Indeed, the introduction or preclusion of a single piece of evidence can result in a drastic change in the result of a case.

In your paper, address the following.

  1. Select four areas in evidence law where the rules are controversial.
  2. What are the controversial rules within each potentially problematic area? What language specifically makes the rule(s) controversial? How would you propose to improve this problematic area of evidence law? In your proposed suggestions for improvement, also include draft language for an improved rule.
  3. Research the history of the different areas you find troubling (for example: history of the use of expert witnesses in criminal court proceedings). Some areas you might consider:
    • use of DNA evidence
    • use of expert witnesses and the guidelines imposed for qualification as an expert
    • child witnesses
    • defendants’ rights at trial
    • scientific evidence and reliability issues
    • Miranda warnings
    • privileges
    • exclusionary rule and exceptions
    • mistaken identification
    • warrantless searches
    • surveillance.

      Note: You are not confined to this list. You may choose other topics and their applicable rules in evidence to evaluate. This list is simply offered as a starting point and does not provide you with the rules you must analyze.

Paper Instructions:

Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent

40.0 to >32.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

32.0 to >24.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in critical analysis.

24.0 to >16.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

16.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials.

40.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements

60.0 to >48.0 pts

Meets Expectation

The Portfolio includes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

48.0 to >36.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

The Portfolio includes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

36.0 to >24.0 pts

Below Expectation

The Portfolio includes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

24.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

The Portfolio includes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment.

60.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Analysis

40.0 to >32.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Demonstrates strong or adequate critical analysis of laws of evidence.

32.0 to >24.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in critical analysis.

24.0 to >16.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major errors or omissions in critical analysis.

16.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Fails to demonstrate critical analysis.

40.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProblem Solving

40.0 to >32.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Demonstrates strong or adequate thought and insight in problem solving regarding laws of evidence.

32.0 to >24.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major errors or omissions in problem solving.

24.0 to >16.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major errors or omissions in problem solving.

16.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Fails to demonstrate problem solving.

40.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSources

15.0 to >12.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Cites and integrates at least four credible sources.

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Cites and integrates three credible sources.

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Below Expectation

Cites and integrates two credible sources.

6.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Cites and integrates one credible source or none.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Source Material

15.0 to >12.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Sources well or adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue; knowledge from the course linked properly to source material.

12.0 to >9.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Some significant but not major problems with selection and linkage of sources.

9.0 to >6.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major problems with selection and linkage of sources.

6.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Source selection is seriously flawed; no linkage to knowledge from the course.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization

20.0 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Project is clearly organized, well written, and in proper essay format including an introduction, body, and conclusion. Conforms to project requirements.

16.0 to >12.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Small number of significant but not major flaws in organization and writing; is in proper essay format. In a minor way does not conform to project requirements.

12.0 to >8.0 pts

Below Expectation

Major problems in organization and writing; does not completely follow proper essay format. In a significant way does not conform to project requirements.

8.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Project is not well organized or well written and is not in proper essay format. Does not conform to project requirements.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar and Style

20.0 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few or no minor errors in grammar and spelling; appropriate writing style; clear and concise with no unsupported comments.

16.0 to >12.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Small number of significant but not major errors in grammar and spelling; generally appropriate writing.

12.0 to >8.0 pts

Below Expectation

Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; work needed on grammar and spelling; does not meet program expectations.

8.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Poor quality; unacceptable in terms of grammar and/or spelling; inappropriate writing style that interferes with clarity.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style

20.0 to >16.0 pts

Meets Expectation

Project contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than one significant error.

16.0 to >12.0 pts

Approaches Expectation

Few errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with no more than two to three significant errors.

12.0 to >8.0 pts

Below Expectation

Significant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with four to five significant errors.

8.0 to >0 pts

Limited Evidence

Numerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing and APA, with more than five significant errors.

20.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCRJ3353 – Evaluate the difference between the burden of proof and burden of persuasion and on the prosecution and defense in a criminal trialview longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

5.0 ptsMeets Expectation- Demonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of theory; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources.

3.0 ptsApproaches Expectation – Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

2.0 ptsBelow Expectation Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

0.0 ptsLimited Evidence Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCRJ3356 -Describe significant topics regarding witness testimony.view longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

5.0 ptsMeets Expectation- Demonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of theory; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources.

3.0 ptsApproaches Expectation – Some significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

2.0 ptsBelow Expectation Major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge.

0.0 ptsLimited Evidence Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials.

5.0 pts

Total Points: 280.0

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient"for a 15% Discount!"
Buy Custom Nursing Papers