Respond to the following two posts.

Post 1

When a case is brought to trial, evidence is always introduced. This is not a 'free for all' in terms of what can and cannot be entered into evidence. There are certain rules and procedures that need to be followed if you want your evidence to be considered. But why do we need to have detailed rules of evidence for the courtroom? This is not made to complicate things even further. It is actually quite the opposite. The purpose of all these rules is to ensure the trial is carried out in a just way. If there were no rules for evidence, trials could last an unreasonably long time. The evidence is what the attorneys ask the witnesses questions about. This also helps make sure the trial does not leave the defendant treated unfairly. We don't just let the jury hear anything that witnesses or attorneys want to say because this would leave open too much room for the jury to be swayed by emotions or biases. Jurors are to make their decision based on the facts presented to them at the trial. Admissible evidence in court is anything that is legally relevant to the case, reliable, and material, thus allowing it to be used in the trial (Quinnan, 2019). Inadmissible evidence is anything that is not relevant or does not meet the legal qualifications that would allow it to be used in court. The mechanisms that an attorney can bring to the attention of a judge when they believe evidence is inadmissible are deeming it as irrelevant, introducing prejudice for the defendant, confusing, or a waste of time (Cornell Law School, 2021). The attorneys are allowed to petition the judge to dismiss evidence if it fits any of those categories. There are disadvantages for an attorney when the defense tries to have evidence excluded in the court room. One of the most prominent examples of this is the suspicion that could arise from the jurors. Despite jurors needing to be unbiased, they are human and will form opinions based on what they see. If an attorney is constantly trying to get evidence excluded, this could indicate to a juror that they are trying to hide something. This would cause suspicions to rise which is unhelpful to the defendant.

Post 2

In criminal trials, states have specific rules about evidence to ensure the trial is fair and reliable. These rules help decide what evidence is important and trustworthy, while also stopping unnecessary or confusing information from being used which could cause potential bias with the jury. According to Florida Statutes and Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence can be used if it might prove or disprove an important fact in the case (2024). For example, Florida Statutes Section 90.401 says evidence is important if it helps confirm or deny a key fact, aiding in legal recognition and assumptions (2024). This is crucial because rules like this guide what facts the jury considers, helping them make fair decisions based on the evidence.

Admissible evidence is evidence that can legally be shown in court, and it is important that it is relevant and does not make the jury biased (Rose, 2013). Professor Rose emphasized that checking if evidence is admissible is essential to see if it fits the case and isn't overly biased (2013). Admissibility matters because lawyers need to see if certain evidence might confuse or mislead the jury, and if so, then it could be considered inadmissible to use in court. Lawyers can challenge evidence listed as inadmissible by making objections or filing a motion to suppress to keep it from being disclosed or discussed with the jury (Roberson, 2022)

There are different ways for lawyers to argue against evidence that shouldn't be allowed in court, such as using motions to suppress and making objections during the trial (Roberson, 2022). These methods are supported by the rules from the Florida Bar, which explain when to file a motion to challenge evidence (Chapter 3 - Rules of Criminal Procedure, 2025). For example, a motion to suppress can be used if a lawyer thinks the evidence was collected in a way that violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Lawyers can also object to evidence during a trial to alert the judge about possible problems with it (Rose, 2013). These steps show how fair legal processes are used to protect individuals to ensure due process and a fair trial.

The need to "strike out" a piece of evidence from the record could be harmful to the defendant in certain scenarios. For example, trying to remove evidence might make the jury notice it more, which is usually the opposite of what the defense would want and in doing so may cause juror bias where there may have been none to begin with. Trying to remove evidence can also interrupt the flow of the trial which might lead to negative results for the defense as well. A defense team would want to prepare ahead of time and review all possible evidence that could be presented in a case and attempt to have any evidence they believe could cause bias deemed inadmissible by way of a motion to suppress prior to the trial starting to have the best possible outcome for their client, the defendant.