Research Paper on:
United Kingdom and Evidence That is Illegally Obtained

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
privileged position because they may give opinion as evidence, something that is not like other witnesses who can only give evidence of fact (2003). Whichever side experts are called by,  their duty is certain, which is to give impartial and objective evidence for the court and not for the side that has called them (2003). The defense may ask for  an expert opinion and then decide not to use such evidence at all (2003). If an expert opinion is to be utilized it must be disclosed to the prosecution and  the prosecution is under an obligation to disclose all of its evidence to the defense (2003). Laws of evidence are important in the system. Some evidence is not admissible. Certainly,  if it were improperly obtained, it would not be able to be utilized in a court of law. The judge would simply not allow it. While many people do not  realize why it is critical to obtain evidence properly, they do find out when it is excluded in a case where a client appears guilty. Indeed, it is hard to  try a case when important evidence is excluded. That is why lawyers must be careful when improperly obtained evidence is a part of the case. Mirfield (1998) in fact focuses  on the topic of pretrial evidence and warns about improperly obtained evidence. Although it is something that every first year law student understands, it is a subject that is rather  controversial. Several cases do provide anecdotal information on this topic and how the law is applied. In a 1996 case Regina v Khan, it is explained that Lord Nolan said  that Khan had arrived from Pakistan at Manchester airport on the same flight as a cousin of his named Nawab ("Covert," 1996). He was stopped and searched and Nawab