Description of exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule is a rule made by the judge maintaining that the proof gotten by the government in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant cannot be used against him. The rule comes from the Fifth Amendment which disallows the use of an object in court in case the object is not obtained legally or without a proper warrant of search. It is therefore a legal rule prevents the United States government from applying the most evidence collected in violation of the constitution. The rule is meant to protect the citizens of America from the effect of police misconduct towards them (Hsieh, 2016).
Benefits of exclusionary rule
The first benefit is that it requires every law maker to abide by the law.  This implies that no one is above the law at any given time. The presence of the exclusionary law ensures that the accused is not convicted by proof that might have been collected prior to the date of being accused of law violation. The second benefit is that the rule also requires probable cause which implies that there ought to be a rational suspicion of criminal offence before the warrant of evidence gathering is issued. As a result, it protects the citizens from unfair kind of trial.  Exclusionary rule also limits the government power. This legally prevents the government from controlling the citizens by their own law. As such it helps the citizens to privately keep their properties without being used against them through the involvement of an official from the government. The rule also assumes the accused to be innocent until proved guilty by a jury or judge in authority. Because of that, it supports the system of justice in the United States which also says that an individual is assumed innocent until they are proved guilt. This encourages fairness in the trial process. In addition, the exclusionary rule reduces the danger of using evidence that is manufactured. This is because the rule also maintains that there ought to be documented known sequence of evidence for items to be confessed against the accused (Ittana, 2018).
Best evidence
The methods of demonstrative evidence which would explain the concept of “Best Evidence” include the use of video recordings, computer animation and simulation among others. In the case of video recordings, the attorney ought to consider viewing the video equipment of the court properly in advance before the trial in order to solve any problem of compatibility or connectivity. The attorney also need to consider bringing he backup projector, the screen and copies of video records as their own equipment on traditional and digital media. In the case where the recording is of admission testimony with doubts, then there must be edited recording following the court rule on objections or agreement to turn the volume off as suitable to prevent the jury from hearing testimony that is unacceptable. Computer animations and simulation are known to be very effective in evidence demonstration in causing the jury to have a feeling of first-hand information. This method is very expensive and hence the lawyer ought to be sure of their admissibility prior to spending money for the creation of exhibits (Gonzalez, 2016).
“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” violation
The newly appointed investigators should know that the absolute adherence to avoiding any evidentiary issue that would result in a “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” violation involves using accurate and legal search approaches to gather evidence against the accused. The absolute adherence also involves using the legal way of arresting the accused and without using coercive way of interrogation when collecting evidence (fruit in this case). It is therefore identical to exclusionary rule where legal and correct method has to be used in searching or collecting evidence for the accused. The ramifications and result of such violation will include exclusion and inadmissibility of the presented evidence before the jury. As a result, the accused will not go through trial with the evidence that is questionable (Cantrell, 2012).
Scenario1: In the case of accused versus the Government, if the prosecution introduces the issue of drug against the accused and illegally happens to arrest him after failing to get convincing evidence from the said criminal case, the court can rule that everything presented as evidence against the accused is a violation of the fruit of the poisonous tree, particularly after getting some contradicting statement from the witness against the accuser.
Scenario 2: If the case of financial fraud is presented to the court by the Government against the accuser, and the accused was illegally arrested after investigators used coercion or threat to collect evidence from him, and if the witness against the accused provides a contradictory kind of statement, causing the court to learn that illegal method of evidence collection was used, then the court will rule that everything presented as evidence is a violation of the fruit of the poisonous tree even if it is true that the accused was actually involved in the financial fraud.
Courts displeasure with Christian Burial Speech
The idea behind the courts displeasure with issues like the Christian Burial Speech was because this was   a criminal case where reliable evidence plus advanced investigation was collected by police from the accused (Williams). However, the police violated the law by using wrong method of investigation. The police was not to investigate the accused in the absence of attorney as he promised before. The police being aware that Williams had mental problem and was deeply rooted in religious used that opportunity to persuade the accused in a speech that saw him accepting his criminal act. The main idea here is that the method used to collect evidence was illegal although the evidence was reliable. In the long run, this might mean that criminals will continue to walk escort free after committing serious offences as federal courts will be negating the earlier conviction rule made by the court against the criminal on the basis of illegal method of evidence collection  that lead to wrong admission by the accused (Kamisar, 1978).
Shocking the Conscience of the Court Test
The behavior of making a conviction rule by the court on a case where the evidence collection procedure is questionable by a different court may result in application of the Shocking Conscience of the Court Test.An example of the scenario for this context may involve the case of convicting an accuser on criminal case of theft based on reliable evidence which was collected by illegal means such as coercion that eventually led to illegal arrest. A different court, such as Federal court later comes and overrules or cancels the previous verdict or conviction by the initial court based on the fact that the illegal method was used to gather evidence that led to wrong admission by the accuser. Such a scenario can result to application of the Shocking Conscience of the Court Test.
Coercion is clear violation of the constitution because it involves false confessions that leads to self-incriminationof the accused thereby accepting wrong evidence as part of other evidences implicated on him/her by the investigators for arrest and trial in court. The area violated through coercion includes the section of confessions in the Fifth Amendment of the constitution which commands that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The types of behaviors that are considered coercion include forcing or putting pressure on the accused to accept wrong evidence, using threats or applying torture as a way of determining admissibility of confessions by the accused(FindLaw, n.d). In such a case, the confession will have violated The Fruit of Poisonous Tree given that the forceful evidence gathered will have gone against the exclusionary rule, meaning that the investigation officers have excluded the rightful evidence from the case.
Liabilities of the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is liable for the conviction of victims or accused with evidence of no solid basis. At the same time, the rule is also liable for the illegal set free of victims arrested based on reliable evidence which is interpreted otherwise. In other words the exclusionary rule is liable for the illegal suppression of the defendant whose case is based on false confession evidence that violates the constitution. The rule is liable for this because its main aim is to protect the constitution by protecting citizens from misconduct by investigation officers like police. The error that can in this case include systematic error. Systematic error in this case means that the police or investigation officer failed to follow the right sequence of procedure when collecting evidence from the accused (Stuntz, 1996). As such, any court convicting such an accuser will also have committed another error, that is, constitutional error. The ramifications which can result from systematic error will be wrongful conviction of the victim in case the court fails to realize that an error was made or committed when gathering evidence concerning the accused. Because of this, it can also lead to comprised integrity of the court if the real facts are discovered after conviction.

References
Ittana.(2018).9 Exclusionary Rule Pros and Cons. Retrieved from https://vittana.org/9-exclusionary-rule-pros-and-cons
Gonzalez  E,.A .(2016).Demonstrative Evidence.Board Certified Trial Attorney, Retrieved from http://www.ervingonzalez.com/civil-trial-practice-chapter-14-demonstrative-evidence/
Stuntz, W. J. (1996). Virtues and Vices of the Exclusionary Rule, The.Harv.JL & Pub.Pol’y, 20, 443.
Cantrell, M. A. (2012). Constitutional Penumbras and Prophylactic Rights: The Right to Counsel and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. Am. J. Crim. L., 40, 111.
Kamisar, Y. (1978). Brewer v. Williams, Massiah, and Miranda: What Is Interrogation-When Does It Matter. Geo. LJ, 67, 1.
FindLaw.(nd). Annotation 9 – Fifth Amendment. Retrieved from https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation09.html
Hsieh, K. H. (2016). The Exclusionary Rule of Evidence: Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform. Routledge.