Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part Ii)-Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This Article will offer an elaboration of the idea of judicial "aggressiveness" (which Professor Stone, by and large, leaves undefined) through examination of the majority opinion in United States v. Leon and its application in Massachusetts v. Sheppard. It will also advance the thesis that the majority in Leon exhibited a particular kind of aggressiveness--willful deafness.
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Gates, Leon And The Compromise Of Adjudicatory Fairness: (Part I)-A Dialogue On Prejudicial Concurrences, Joel J. Finer
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
On July 5, 1984, the Supreme Court in Leon v. United States held that where law enforcement officials execute a search warrant issued in violation of the dictates of the fourth amendment but act in the "good faith," "objectively-reasonable" belief that the warrant was constitutionally valid, the fruits of the search should not (with a few exceptions) be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. On June 8, 1983, in Illinois v. Gates, the Supreme Court, after calling for and receiving briefs and arguments on the same issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified, concluded, for reasons of …
The Effects Of Tucker On The Fruits Of Illegally Obtained Statements, Jeffery P. Reinhard
The Effects Of Tucker On The Fruits Of Illegally Obtained Statements, Jeffery P. Reinhard
Cleveland State Law Review
Although the Court has been careful to point out that illegally obtained statements are not admissible in the prosecution's case in chief, Michigan v. Tucker has done much to erode even that principle. In Tucker, the Court found admissible the testimony of a witness whose identity was learned solely on the basis of a statement obtained from the defendant in violation of the guidelines set forth in Miranda. Despite the Court's statement that it was significant that the interrogation preceded Miranda, and notwithstanding its reiteration of the principle that the defendant's statements would not have been admissible in the prosecution's …