America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System, 13th Edition Chapter 11 Disclosing and Suppressing Evidence

Learning Objectives (1 of 2) Explain the reasons why the process of discovery exists in both civil and criminal cases, but is significantly curtailed in the latter. Differentiate formal and informal discovery and the reasons why both are used in criminal cases. Identify the types of evidence subject to mandatory criminal discovery. Compare and contrast the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Summarize how the decision in Miranda v. Arizona regulates the process of police interrogations of suspects.

Learning Objectives (2 of 2) Explain the requirements governing the application for search warrants, the issuance of search warrants, and the execution of search warrants. Identify the major exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Analyze the effect of the exclusionary rule on the operations of the courtroom work group. Evaluate whether the exclusionary rule should be abolished.

Discovery Informal and formal exchange of information between parties Civil cases Criminal cases Examples include: Lab reports Statements of witnesses Defendants’ confessions Police reports

Law on the Books: Rules Requiring Disclosure (1 of 2) No general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) State v. Tune (1953) Too much prosecutorial disclosure may result in defendants taking undue advantage Type of information that is discoverable varies from state to state Exculpatory evidence Impeachment evidence

Law on the Books: Rules Requiring Disclosure (2 of 2) Discovery of exculpatory evidence Brady v. Maryland (1963) Kyles v. Whitley (1995) Discovery of impeachment evidence Jencks v. United States (1957) Giglio v. United States (1972)

Law in Action: Informal Prosecutorial Disclosure Discovery rules are important to defense attorneys Save time Ease the attorney client relationship Greatly encourage guilty pleas

Law and Controversy: Requiring Reciprocal Disclosure Guiding principle: Trial should be a level playing field Alibi defense Insanity plea Constitution limits reciprocal discovery

Suppressing Evidence Exclusionary rule Weeks v. U.S. (1914) Wolf v. Colorado (1949) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Dickerson v. U.S. (2000)

The Exclusionary Rule (1 of 2) Prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence at trial Justified on three grounds Courts should not participate in illegal conduct. It deters law enforcement misconduct. Other remedies (civil) are unworkable.

The Exclusionary Rule (2 of 2) Derivative evidence Fruit of the poisonous tree is excluded from admission at trial Poison – evidence directly obtained as a result of a constitutional violation Fruit – derivative evidence because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Independent source Attenuation Inevitable discovery Good faith

Interrogations and Confessions Voluntariness standard Miranda warnings Sixth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Interrogation law See “Key Developments in Interrogation Law”

Case Close-Up: Miranda v. Arizona Miranda had extensive criminal history Was interrogated by officers and told he failed Signed a written confession admitting guilt Found guilty by jury Was not advised of his constitutional rights during interrogation Warren court stated his rights were violated, and this changed the way police handled interrogations ever since.

Thinking Point: BTK Killer Consider the case of the BTK Killer. If he admitted to all of his crimes without being read his Miranda rights, is this admissible in court? Should he be read Miranda? Under what conditions would you choose not to read Miranda? Do you believe this must be done to obtain a confession?

Search and Seizure The Fourth Amendment Reasonableness clause Search Warrants clause Freedom from “unreasonable search and seizure” What is “unreasonable search and seizure”? Stop and frisk Terry v. Ohio

Thinking Point: Terry v. Ohio Research and discuss the Terry v. Ohio landmark case. What allows officers to approach a person on the street and conduct a Terry pat? Is this justified? What is your perspective on officers having the ability to pat down citizens?

Search Warrants (1 of 2) Applying for search warrants Authority to issue a search warrant Issued by a neutral judge Affidavit Search warrant issuance The requirement of particularity Supported by oath or affirmation asserting probable cause Specifically describe the place to be searched and people/things to be seized

Search Warrants (2 of 2) Executing search warrants Executed in timely manner Limited to achieving objective of warrant Reasonable time of day Knock-and-announce/no knock exceptions Performance of search warrant must be reasonable Reasonable amount of force when searching After search warrants are executed

Warrant Exceptions Most common type of search Katz v. U.S. Three forms of warrantless searches Consent Plain view Incident to a lawful arrest

Warrantless Searches Electronic surveillance Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 Eavesdropping and consent surveillance Electronically stored information Stored Communications Act Video surveillance Intelligence surveillance Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Applying the Fourth Amendment

The Exclusionary Rule and the Courtroom Work Group (1 of 2) Pretrial motions Suppression motions Defense attorney usually bears the burden of proof Swearing matches Defense attorney as prime mover Unless the defense objects, it is assumed that law enforcement officials have behaved properly.

The Exclusionary Rule and the Courtroom Work Group (2 of 2) The defensive posture of the prosecutor Best case, suppression motions mean extra work. Worst case, the case is lost. Trial judges as decision makers Key policymakers in applying and implementing Supreme Court decisions Police testimony

Law and Controversy: Costs of the Exclusionary Rule Research Compared to lack of evidence and witness problems, Mapp and Miranda are minor sources of case attrition. Motions to suppress are rarely filed.

Courts, Controversy, and Reducing Crime Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? What do you think? Should the exclusionary rule be abolished outright, given “good-faith” exceptions, or kept in its present form? If one admits that there are problems in its current application, what realistic alternatives might restrain law enforcement from potentially conducting blatant and flagrant searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment?