Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Fordham Urban Law Journal
In this symposium contribution, I contend that the application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in cases tried by juries raises troubling moral issues that are not present when a judge adjudicates a case on his or her own. Specifically, I argue that the exclusionary rule infringes upon jurors’ deliberative autonomy by depriving them of available evidence that rationally bears upon their verdict and by instrumentalizing them in service to the Court’s deterrence objectives. After considering ways in which those moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, I contend that the best approach might be to abandon the exclusionary …
Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins
Introduction To Symposium: The Future Of The Exclusionary Rule And The Aftereffects Of The Herring And Hudson Decisions, Barry Kamins
Fordham Urban Law Journal
This article is an introduction the symposium, "The Future of the Exclusionary Rule and the Aftereffects of the Herring and Hudson Decisions," hosted by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. The symposium explored the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Herring v. United States and Hudson v. Michigan—what the Supreme Court will do with the Rule in the future, as well as varying interpretations of what the Supreme Court should do. The federal exclusionary rule, which is approaching its 100th anniversary, was extended to the states almost fifty years ago by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision of Mapp …
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The justices of the Supreme Court have drawn new battle lines over the exclusionary rule. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), a five-justice majority, over a strong dissent, went out of the way to renew familiar criticisms of the rule. Just this January, in Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009), the justices again divided five to four. This time the dissenters raised the ante, by arguing that the Court's cost-benefit approach to applying the rule is misguided. For the first time since Justice Brennan left the Court, some of the justices appealed to broader justifications for …
The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb
The Exclusionary Rule Redux - Again, Lloyd L. Weinreb
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The exclusionary rule itself is not very complicated: if the police obtain evidence by means that violate a person’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, the evidence is not admissible against that person in a criminal trial. The basic provision, however, has been freighted with innumerable epicycles, and epicycles on epicycles ever since it was made part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The exclusionary rule survives in a kind of doctrinal purgatory, neither accepted fully into the constitutional canon nor cast into the outer darkness. It survives, but its reach is uncertain, its rational questioned, and its value doubted. Hudson v. Michigan …