Jury And The Search For Truth: The Case Against Excluding Relevant Evidence At Trial: Hearing Before The Committee On The Judiciary, U.s. Senate
Examines the problem of excluding relevant evidence from trial. Reviews proposals to alter the remedy for unreasonable search & seizures under the 4th amendment & to revisit Congress' earlier attempt to ensure that voluntary confessions are brought before the jury. Witnesses: Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law School; William Gangi, St. John's U.; Paul J. Larkin, Jr., King & Spaulding; Judge Ralph Adam Fine, Wisc.; Joseph D. Grano, Wayne State U. Law School; Paul G. Cassell, U. of Utah College of Law; Michael McCann, DA, Milwaukee, WI; Carol S. Steiker, Harvard Law School; & Thomas Y. Davies, U. of Tenn. Coll. of Law.
Hva folk mener - Skriv en omtale
Vi har ikke funnet noen omtaler på noen av de vanlige stedene.
abolishing the exclusionary admissible affidavit Amar apply attorneys authority Bill of Rights Bivens certiorari citizens common law conduct confession rate Congress constitutional rights convicted crime criminal justice Davies decision defendant defendant's exclusion exclusionary rule fact faith exception Federal courts Federalist Papers Fifth Amendment Fourth Amendment rights Fourth Amendment violations framers Gangi good-faith exception Grano guilty illegal search illegally obtained innocent interrogation issue Judge judicial jury Larkin law enforcement officers lawful arrest legislative Leon liquor offence Mapp ment Miranda warnings O.J. Simpson objectively reasonable offense officer's OkL Cr percent person police officers probable cause Professor prophylactic rule proposed prosecution prosecutors protect punitive damages question Response search or seizure search warrant searches and seizures Senator Biden Senator Kyl Senator Leahy sion sionary rule standard statements statute suppression Supreme Court suspect tion tort remedy trial unconstitutional United unlawful unreasonable searches voluntary warrantless searches
Side 118 - The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
Side 151 - Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation...
Side 104 - The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it— the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter ! — all his force dares not cross* the threshold of the ruined tenement...
Side 33 - In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.
Side 102 - ... support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to...
Side 147 - The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.
Side 109 - Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means - to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal - would bring terrible retribution....
Side 137 - The effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority, and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches Protection assured and seizures under the guise of law.
Side 35 - The value of capital punishment as a deterrent of crime is a complex factual issue the resolution of which properly rests with the legislatures, which can evaluate the results of statistical studies in terms of their own local conditions and with a flexibility of approach that is not available to the courts.