Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
1. Remedies for Constitutional Violations I: The Exclusionary Rule and Entrapment Chapter 10
2. Types of Remedies Remedies affecting the outcome of the state’s criminal case against defendant:
The exclusionary rule
The defense of entrapment
Remedies sought in separate proceedings:
Criminal prosecution of officers
Civil lawsuits to sue officers, departments, and/or municipalities
Administrative review of police misconduct
3. History of the Exclusionary Rule
4. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
5. Justifications for the Exclusionary Rule Constitutional rights—The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have no value without the exclusion.
Judicial integrity—The courts shouldn’t participate in unconstitutional behavior by approving it.
Deterrence—Prevent unconstitutional conduct by government officers.
6. Collateral Use Collateral use—Illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all non-trial settings (bail hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings).
7. Cross Examination During cross examination, the prosecution can use illegally obtained evidence to undermine (impeach) defense witnesses’ (including the defendant’s) credibility.
8. Attenuation Tainted evidence is admissible if the totality of circumstances in the case proves that the poisonous connection between police illegal action and the evidence has weakened (attenuated) enough.
9. Independent Source Tainted evidence is admissible if, after violating the Constitution, officers get the same evidence in a totally separate lawful action.
10. Inevitable Discovery Tainted evidence is admissible if police law breaking produced the evidence but the evidence would have been discovered eventually anyway.
11. Nix v. Williams1984 Appeal from retrial of Robert Williams
Brewer v. Williams
7 years later
Search party would have discovered
12. Persons Seized Illegally Persons seized (arrested) illegally aren’t fruit of the poisonous tree, so they can be produced, tried, and convicted in court.
Courts don’t ask how individual got to court.
13. The Reasonable, Good Faith Exception The reasonable, good faith exception, created by U.S. v. Leon (1984), allows the government to use evidence obtained from searches based on unlawful search warrants if officers honestly and reasonably believed they were lawful.
The law was created to prevent misconduct.
The rule has no deterrent effect if officers believed they were doing everything legitimately.
14. U.S. v. Leon
468 U.S. 897
15. Non-Law Enforcement Government Officials The exclusionary rule is in place only to prevent unconstitutional government actions.
The rule applies to police because they are deterred by exclusion.
The rule doesn’t apply to judges and other court personnel because there’s no evidence that exclusion would deter their misconduct.
16. Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995)
17. The Defense of Entrapment Criminal cases are dismissed if the government pressured defendants to commit crimes they wouldn’t have otherwise committed.
The defense of entrapment is an affirmative defense.
Defendants have the burden of introducing evidence that they were entrapped before the government must prove they weren’t.
18. Encouragement vs. Entrapment Encouragement is not entrapment.
Two tests determine the line between entrapment and encouragement.
The subjective test focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime.
The objective test focuses on the behavior of law enforcement.
19. Jacobson v. U.S.
503 U.S. 540