One of the big "holes" in our criminal justice system is the fact that fact-finders (often, juries) have limited access to truthful, reliable evidence, because that evidence was obtained in a manner that offends our Fourth Amendment, as currently conceived. It excludes evidence that was obtained under an invalid/flawed search warrant, a "defective" confession, an illegal search or recording of a conversation, and so on.
While this evidence may be perfectly accurate and relevant, the jury doesn't get to see it because the judge excludes it and it can't be presented. Sometimes the exclusionary rule results in cases where the public knows, because of excluded evidence, that the accused is factually guilty, but the un-knowing jury finds him not guilty.
But the Exclusionary Rule is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. It is simply a tradition that was implemented in order to discourage law enforcement personnel from skirting the law when seeking evidence against the accused (or suspected).
Alternatively to the Exclusionary Rule, the courts could impose sanctions on the offending law enforcement personnel, while allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury. Contrary to the current "wisdom," there is no "Constitutional right" to have this evidence excluded; it is merely a custom. Sanctions could include employment-related punishments (suspension, demotion, termination), or criminal indictments in egregious cases.
The fundamental question is, is it acceptable to let guilty people go free, in order to deter wrongdoing by police?
The Exclusionary Rule is the cornerstone of criminal defense. The criminal defense bar would howl like a million banshees if this were proposed by appropriate legislation. But it would be a good change, carrying much more benefit than harm.
While this evidence may be perfectly accurate and relevant, the jury doesn't get to see it because the judge excludes it and it can't be presented. Sometimes the exclusionary rule results in cases where the public knows, because of excluded evidence, that the accused is factually guilty, but the un-knowing jury finds him not guilty.
But the Exclusionary Rule is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. It is simply a tradition that was implemented in order to discourage law enforcement personnel from skirting the law when seeking evidence against the accused (or suspected).
Alternatively to the Exclusionary Rule, the courts could impose sanctions on the offending law enforcement personnel, while allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury. Contrary to the current "wisdom," there is no "Constitutional right" to have this evidence excluded; it is merely a custom. Sanctions could include employment-related punishments (suspension, demotion, termination), or criminal indictments in egregious cases.
The fundamental question is, is it acceptable to let guilty people go free, in order to deter wrongdoing by police?
The Exclusionary Rule is the cornerstone of criminal defense. The criminal defense bar would howl like a million banshees if this were proposed by appropriate legislation. But it would be a good change, carrying much more benefit than harm.
