Law Commons^™

Crime Control, Due Process, & Evidentiary Exclusion: When Exceptions Become The Rule, Elizabeth H. Kaylor

Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association

This paper uses the dichotomy between Herbert Packer’s (1968) two models of criminal justice advocacy – “crime control” and “due process” – as a rhetorical paradigm for understanding policy debate about the exclusion of relevant evidence at trial. Understanding the opposition between crime control and due process advocates as a rhetorical controversy, in which commonly-used ideographs camouflage dramatically different constructions of the concepts at stake, helps to illuminate the way each side mobilizes public support for their narrative of doing . While both the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally-obtained evidence in criminal cases) and the “fruit of …

"Not Just A Common Criminal": The Case For Sentencing Mitigation Videos, Regina Austin

All Faculty Scholarship

Sentencing mitigation or sentencing videos are a form of visual legal advocacy that is produced on behalf of defendants for use in the sentencing phases of criminal cases (from charging to clemency). The videos are typically short (5 to 10 minutes or so) nonfiction films that explore a defendant’s background, character, and family situation with the aim of raising factual and moral issues that support the argument for a shorter or more lenient sentence. Very few examples of mitigation videos are in the public domain and available for viewing. This article provides a complete analysis of the constituent elements of …

How Accountability-Based Policing Can Reinforce - Or Replace - The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, David A. Harris

Articles

In Hudson v. Michigan, a knock-and-announce case, Justice Scalia's majority opinion came close to jettisoning the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The immense costs of the rule, Scalia said, outweigh whatever benefits might come from it. Moreover, police officers and police departments now generally follow the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, so the exclusionary rule has outlived the reasons that the Court adopted it in the first place. This viewpoint did not become the law because Justice Kennedy, one member of the five-vote majority, withheld his support from this section of the opinion. But the closeness of the vote on …

Out To Lunch: Saks & Koehler Reply To Rudin & Imman's Commentary, Jonathan Koehler

Faculty Working Papers

At several points in their comment on our article in Science (1), Rudin & Inman (2, 3) asserted or clearly implied that we had been dishonest in our presentation. In each of those instances Rudin & Inman's charges are groundless, as we demonstrate below.

Had Rudin & Inman examined the actual source [see Fig. 1, right], they would have discovered that the words were indeed those of Moenssens, that they were consistent with the context in which they appeared, that Moenssens was not quoting Zain or anyone else, and that Saks & Koehler had accurately attributed the statement to its …