Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Exclusionary rule (3)
- Fourth Amendment (3)
- John Roberts (2)
- 911 calls (1)
- Admissibility (1)
-
- Coercion (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Contempt (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Criminal prosecution (1)
- Cross-examination (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Exoneration (1)
- Hearsay (1)
- Hudson v. Michigan (1)
- Indigent representation (1)
- Law enforcement (1)
- Mapp v. Ohio (1)
- Melendez Diaz v. Massachusetts (1)
- Nontestimonial hearsay (1)
- Ohio v. Roberts (1)
- Prosecutorial misconduct (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Scott v. Illinois (1)
- Search (1)
- Sixth Amendment (1)
- Suppression hearing (1)
- Testimonial hearsay (1)
- Testimony (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Fourth Amendment, The Exclusionary Rule, And The Roberts Court: Normative And Empirical Dimensions Of The Over-Deterrence Hypothesis, Donald Dripps
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part …
Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak
Replacing The Exclusionary Rule: Fourth Amendment Violations As Direct Criminal Contempt, Ronald J. Rychlak
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The exclusionary rule, which bars from admission evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, is a bedrock of American law. It is highly controversial, but there seems to be no equally effective way to protect citizens' rights. This paper proposes that an admissibility standard be adopted that is in keeping with virtually every jurisdiction around the world other than the United States. Thus, before ruling evidence inadmissible, the court would consider the level of the constitutional violation, the seriousness of the crime, whether the violation casts substantial doubt on the reliability of the …
Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver
Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …
Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby
Mapp V. Ohio'S Unsung Hero: The Suppression Hearing As Morality Play, Scott E. Sundby
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The exclusionary rule is back under the judicial magnifying glass. Recent opinions, most notably by Justice Scalia, have sparked speculation that the Roberts Court is inclined to overrule Mapp v. Ohio and send Fourth Amendment disputes back to the realm of civil suits and police disciplinary actions. As the Court's rulings have made clear, any reevaluation of the exclusionary rule's future will be conducted under the now familiar rubric of whether the rule's "benefit" of deterring police misbehavior outweighs the "cost" of lost evidence and convictions.
This essay argues that if any such reevaluation does occur, the Court must take …
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Melendez-Diaz And The Right To Confrontation, Craig M. Bradley
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts and adopted new law concerning the use of hearsay testimony at criminal trials. This was based on the Sixth Amendment's command that "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him .. " On its face this provision seems to say that the accused has the right to cross-examine anybody who testifies for the prosecution at trial, whether as a live witness or through hearsay. The Supreme Court acknowledged much of this in Crawford, but …