What rule prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence during a trial?

The exclusionary rule is a fundamental legal principle that prohibits the admission of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. This rule is designed to deter law enforcement from engaging in illicit practices when gathering evidence, thereby protecting the integrity of the judicial process.

When evidence is obtained unlawfully—whether through an improper warrant, a violation of privacy rights, or coercive police tactics—it is considered tainted and cannot be used against a defendant in court. The aim is to uphold the principle that the justice system should not benefit from actions that contravene constitutional protections.

This rule plays a crucial role in ensuring that evidence submitted in court is gathered in compliance with established legal standards, thus promoting fairness in the judicial process. In contrast, the other choices pertain to different areas of legal doctrine: double jeopardy protects against being tried for the same crime twice; hearsay involves the admissibility of secondhand statements; and the Miranda rule relates to informing suspects of their rights during custodial interrogations. Each of these rules serves distinct purposes in legal proceedings and does not specifically address the issue of using illegally obtained evidence.