Criminal Procedure

1
Criminal Procedure

• 7th Edition
• Joel Samaha
• Thomson-Wadsworth Publishing

2
Remedies for Constitutional Violations I The
Exclusionary Rule and Entrapment

• Chapter 10

3
Remedies Against Officer Misconduct

• People have several remedies against
• government misconduct
• May be part of or separate from the criminal case
  against the defendant.

4
Types of Remedies

• Remedies affecting the outcome of the
• states 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

5
History of the Exclusionary Rule
6
Justifications for the Exclusionary Rule

• The following provide justifications for the
• exclusionary rule
• Constitutional rightsThe Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
  and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldnt mean
  anything without the exclusion.
• Judicial integrityThe courts shouldnt
  participate in unconstitutional behavior by
  approving it.
• DeterrencePrevent unconstitutional conduct by
  government officers.

7
Scope of the Exclusionary Rule

• It is not a constitutional right, but a
• prophylactic rulea proactive procedure.
• The scope of the rule is restricted because of
  the belief that the social costs of freeing
  guilty people and of undermining the
  prosecutions case are too high and keep good
  evidence out of court.
• The rule is restricted to the governments
  case-in-chief at trial.

8
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

• The Court has created numerous exceptions
• to the exclusionary rule to cover cases that
• it believes dont deter police misconduct.
• Five of the major exceptions are
• Collateral use
• Cross-examination
• Attenuation of the taint of unconstitutional
  conduct
• Independent source
• Inevitable discovery

9
Collateral Use

• Collateral useIllegally obtained evidence is
• admissible in all non-trial settings (bail
• hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury
• proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings).

10
Cross Examination

• During cross examination, the prosecution
• can use illegally obtained evidence to
• undermine (impeach) defense witnesses
• (including the defendants) credibility.

11
Attenuation

• Tainted evidence is admissible if the totality
• of circumstances in the case proves that the
• poisonous connection between police
• illegality and the evidence has weakened
• (attenuated) enough.

12
Independent Source

• Tainted evidence is admissible if, after
• violating the Constitution, officers get the
• same evidence in a totally separate lawful
• action.

13
Inevitable Discovery

• Tainted evidence is admissible if police law
• breaking produced the evidence but the
• evidence would have been discovered
• eventually anyway.

14
Persons Seized Illegally

• Persons seized (arrested) illegally arent fruit
• of the poisonous tree, so they can be
• produced, tried, and convicted in court.
• Courts dont ask how individual got to
• court.

15
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.

16
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 doesnt apply to judges and other court
  personnel because theres no evidence that
  exclusion would deter their misconduct.

17
Social Costs and Deterrence

• There is a social cost for deterring law
• enforcement officers from violating
• individuals rights keeping good evidence
• from juries may set some criminals free.

18
The Defense of Entrapment

• Criminal cases are dismissed if the
• government pressured defendants to
• commit crimes they wouldnt 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 werent.

19
Encouragement vs. Entrapment

• Encouragement is not entrapment. Two
• tests determine the line between
• entrapment and encouragement.
• The subjective test focuses on the defendants
  predisposition to commit the crime.
• The objective test focuses on the behavior of law
  enforcement.