Final answer:
The best evidence rule requires original documents in court, but exceptions include when originals are lost or destroyed through no fault of the proponent, when laws allow summaries, with prior agreement from the parties, or when originals are not critical to the case. The exclusionary rule prohibits using evidence acquired unlawfully.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under the best evidence rule, the original document, recording, or photograph is required to prove the content of that document in court. However, there are certain exceptions where the rule does not apply. Original evidence is not required under the best evidence rule in the following circumstances:
- If the original has been lost or destroyed, not willingly by the party trying to use a substitute.
- When a law or regulation requires only a summary of the original.
- If the parties to the litigation have agreed that a copy or other evidence is acceptable.
- In cases where the original is not closely related to the controlling issues and thus is of minor importance.
Evidence obtained illegally, such as through an unlawful search or seizure without a warrant, is generally not admissible in court due to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule also applies to derivative evidence obtained from the initial illegal search or seizure, often referred to as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'