Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Evidence Illegally Seized By Private Persons Excluded From Criminal Prosecution--People V. Mccomb, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
At common law, illegally seized evidence was admissible on the theory that the nature of the seizure did not necessarily affect the probative value of the evidence. However, in 1914 the United States Supreme Court, in order to protect the fourth amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, adopted a rule excluding from federal courts evidence illegally seized by federal officials. In 1961, the scope of this rule was extended by Mapp v. Ohio, which held that all evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in state courts. However, the Mapp doctrine applies only …
Betts V. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right To Counself And Due Process Values, Yale Kamisar
Betts V. Brady Twenty Years Later: The Right To Counself And Due Process Values, Yale Kamisar
Michigan Law Review
I am quite distressed by talk that the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio "suggests by analogy" that the Court may now overrule Betts v. Brady. For whether one talks about the fourth or the sixth amendment, there is much to be said for Justice Harlan's dissenting views in Mapp. "[W]hatever configurations ... have been developed in the particularizing federal precedents" should not be "deemed a part of 'ordered liberty,' and as such ... enforceable against the States .... [W]e would not be true to the Fourteenth Amendment were we merely to stretch the general principle [ of …
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Michigan Law Review
Legal rules of evidence do not, of course, apply before the labor arbitrator. This is not surprising since such rules were developed in connection with jury trials, and do not apply strictly in any tribunal but a jury-court. The whole theory of the arbitration tribunal is that it is composed of experts who repeatedly inquire into a relatively homogeneous kind of cases. Exclusionary rules are hardly required as a precautionary measure. Indeed, as the late Harry Shulman said in his classic Oliver Wendell Holmes lecture at Harvard in 1955, "The more serious danger is not that the arbitrator will hear …