CSU Global Controversial Rules of Evidence and Proposed Changes Discussion

Controversial Rules of Evidence and Proposed Changes with Case Analysis
For this assignment, you will submit a critical essay in which you:
discuss controversial areas in evidence law;
assess the specific Federal Rules of Evidence that are problematic within those controversial areas and then propose changes; and
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.
Select four areas in evidence law where the rules are controversial.
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.
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:
Your paper should be 8-10 pages in length (not including the required title and references pages).
Include discussion and citation of at least four credible sources other than (or in addition to) the course textbook. You can find these sources in the CSU-Global Library and in the special section there for Criminal Justice (Links to an external site.).
Format your document and source citations according to the CSU-Global Guide to Writing & APA (Links to an external site.).
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 credibl