Exclusion of evidence typically aligns with what broader legal principle?

The correct answer, which points to the presumption of innocence, underscores a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system, where individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty. The exclusion of evidence often serves to protect this principle by ensuring that only reliable and legally obtained evidence is presented in court.

When evidence is excluded, it is frequently because it has been obtained in a way that violates the rights of the accused or is deemed prejudicial, unfairly influencing the jury against the presumption of innocence. For instance, if evidence is gathered through unlawful means, admitting such evidence could undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial.

In this context, concepts like the right to legal representation and the encouragement of plea bargains, while important in their own right, do not directly relate to the broader principle that the legal system should not convict someone unless their guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is therefore fundamentally aligned with the need to exclude questionable evidence, maintaining the integrity of the trial process and protecting individuals against wrongful conviction.