Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach
Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Right To Compel A Suspect To Perform Physical Acts; City Of Piqua V. Hinger, Charles P. Brumbach
Akron Law Review
The writer respectfully disagrees with the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Schmerber as standing for the proposition that such compelled evidence is admissible under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In Schmerber the court merely recognized the evidential distinction between real and testimonial or communicative evidence and ruled that the distinction was determinative in that case. The court acknowledged that there are many possible situations in which the distinction could not so readily be applied. It is submitted that the facts of the instant case present one of those situations.
"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins
"Inevitable Discovery" Or Inevitable Demise Of The Exclusionary Rule? Nix V. Williams, John V. Boggins
Akron Law Review
On June 11, 1984 in the case of Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court adopted a further exception to the exclusionary rule, the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. The inevitable discovery doctrine permits the admission of evidence obtained in spite of a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, where the prosecution can convince the trier of fact by a preponderance that this evidence would have been discovered regardless of any such violation.