Improving the exclusionary rule: A remedial education model

This article reviews the United States Supreme Court decisions on the rationale for the exclusionary rule and numerous law review articles suggesting changes in the rule. A new model is proposed to dovetail with the rule. The courts would participate in developing a compendium of rules and regulations for officers to follow in order to protect constitutional rights. Evidence would continue to be excluded if it were illegally seized in a bad faith. All officers who violate constitutional rights would be subject to remedial education. Supervisory officers and training personnel would also be responsible for the violations committed by line officers. Violations of constitutional rights would be considered when promotions and other personnel decisions are made. Lastly, the victim would be compensated by the governmental agency employing the offending officer with the agency seeking reimbursement from the employee.     

Judicial oversight of policing: investigations, evidence and the exclusionary rule

Police procedures and practices in the investigation of crime are shaped by many things. One particularly important constituent part of the development of investigative procedures and practices is the approach of the courts to the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained in a certain manner. While a judge can only address the specifics of whatever cases are brought before him, the judiciary as a whole have a significant role to play in terms of police accountability and governance through their development and application of any exclusionary rules of criminal evidence. This article examines the judicial oversight of policing by way of the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence at trial. Its central focus is on the development and operation of the exclusionary rule in Ireland, though relevant law in other jurisdictions, including England and Wales, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, is also considered. Particular attention is paid to the recent Irish Supreme Court decision of DPP v Cash, and its ramifications for judicial oversight of policing.     

Police accountability and the Irish law of evidence

Common law courts have differed on whether and to what extent an exclusionary rule should be used as a tool to impose standards on the police. The Irish courts have pursued an uncompromising approach in this area. Basing themselves on the imperative of upholding the constitutional rights of the accused, they have been willing to exclude relevant and cogent evidence on the basis that it was obtained by the police in breach of those rights. This article locates the Irish constitutional exclusionary rule in the broader context of the role of the law of evidence in police governance. Citing specific examples from the Irish legislation and case law, it shows how recent legislative interventions and some judicial hesitancy have fuelled inconsistent and contradictory trends. It concludes that there is now a pressing need for reflection on the respective roles of the legislature and the courts in this area.     

The Societal Cost of the Exclusionary Rule: An Empirical Assessment

A key criticism that has emerged in the debate over the search and seizure exclusionary rule is that it exacts heavy societal costs in the form of lost prosecutions and that such costs outweigh any demonstrated social benefits. This article examines the costs of three exclusionary rules using data collected for 7,500 cases in a nine-county study of criminal courts in three states. It emphasizes motions to suppress physical evidence but for comparative purposes also includes motions to suppress confessions and identifications. The results show that the various exclusionary rules exact only marginal social costs. Motions to suppress physical evidence are filed in fewer than 5% of the cases, largely drug and weapons cases, while serious motions to suppress identifications and confessions are filed in 2% and 4% of the cases. The success rate of motions to suppress is equally marginal. Successful motions to suppress physical evidence occur in only 0.69% of the cases, while successful motions to suppress identifications or confessions occur much less often. Moreover, not all who successfully suppressed evidence escaped conviction, especially when only an identification or a confession was suppressed. In all, only 46 cases—less than 0.6% of the cases studied—were lost because of the three exclusionary rules combined, most of them involving offenses that would have incurred less than six months' imprisonment or first offenders. Finally, the impact of unsuccessful motions on subsequent plea bargaining was found to be marginal; only unsuccessful motions to exclude confessions resulted in any real sentencing concessions.     

非法证据排除规则的举证责任

非法证据排除规则举证责任制度的缺位已成为阻碍我国非法证据排除规则实施的关键性障碍之一。本文在考察不同国家和地区非法证据排除规则举证责任的立法及其原因的基础上 ,主张非法证据排除规则的主要证明责任应由控方承担 ,并提出了若干完善我国侦查取证程序的建议 ,这对于我国建立非法证据排除规则的举证责任制度将具有重要的意义。     

美国证据排除规则的衰变及其启示——以Herring v. United States案为主线的考察

2009年1月的Herring v.United States案判决是近年来美国联邦最高法院关于证据排除规则方面影响最大的判决,它确立了＂过失行为所得非法证据不适用证据排除＂的新规则。该判决以其不同以往任何案例的特殊性引发了关于证据排除的存在必要性、适用范围、审查模式等一系列问题的理论探讨和实务争议。以该判决前后美国联邦最高法院的态度转变和学界回应为鉴,我国证据排除规则的确立应定位于阻吓违法行为,以过错原则为判断标准,并配合职务监督方式施行。     

非法证据排除规则实施考察报告--以J省检察机关为视角

本文是中国政法大学诉讼法学研究院于2013年底对J省检察机关实施非法证据规则情况考察报告的组成部分,内容包括J省人民检察院在实施非法证据排除规则方面的经验和具体活动,J省三级检察院侦查、起诉等刑事诉讼活动和非法证据排除申请、处理等方面的重要数据。报告总结、分析了J省三级检察院实施非法证据排除规则情况,结合我国非法证据排除规则的特色,对该规则实施过程中存在的问题进行了探讨,论述了我国排除非法证据的主体、程序、范围等重要问题,并提出非法实物证据的排除将会成为今后的重要任务。     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.     

The Roberts Court and Police Practices: The Impact of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in Police Practices Cases

In police practices cases, the Supreme Court decides issues that determine when the law enforcement interest in solving crimes must give way to the interest of individuals to be left alone by the government. The replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist with John Roberts and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito has now been in place for more than four terms. The time is appropriate to assess the likely impact of these two new members of the Court on police practices cases. This article examines that question by analyzing both the police practices opinions written by Roberts and Alito while they served on U.S. Courts of Appeals and their opinions while on the Supreme Court through the 2008-09 term. The conclusion is that the previous pattern of the police prevailing in the vast majority of these cases is unlikely to change. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that Chief Justice Roberts is aligning himself closely with Justice Scalia in these cases and may be setting the stage for a significant modification or even elimination of the exclusionary rule.     

管辖规范中的实体要素

包含有实体要素的管辖规范给实务和学界造成了困扰.既有的形式审查说、依原告主张说、初步证据说都各有缺陷或问题.基于处分原则,诉讼标的或诉因应由原告择定,所以对管辖规范中的这类要素不做审查.但对于其它实体要素,在被告提出管辖异议时,应进行实质审查.否则将会使此类管辖规范形同空文,完全听凭原告确定管辖法院,无视被告合理的管辖利益.为减少解释上的分歧,应对此类混合规范重新表述.司法解释中的有些混合规范并无存在必要,甚至还是违法的,应予废除.     

美国产品责任中的纯粹经济损失规则探析——兼论我国相关法律制度的构建

在美国的侵权法上,因产品自身存在的缺陷而发生的产品本身价值的减损、修理更换发生的费用,以及因产品不能使用而发生的利润损失等被视为是一种纯粹经济损失。针对该类损失,美国的法院创造了责任排除规则,并且各州在对这一规则在运用时采用的是一种灵活且有弹性的实践方式。这样灵活的纯粹经济损失规则对于我国相关法律制度的构建非常有借鉴意义。     

Courts between Democracy and Hybrid Authoritarianism: Evidence from the Venezuelan Supreme Court

This article offers a theoretical discussion about courts in “hybrid regimes” that evolve from formerly democratic countries. The evolution toward authoritarianism typically allows governments more latitude to reduce judicial independence and judicial power. Yet, several reasons, including legitimacy costs, a tradition of using courts for judicial adjudication and social control, and even the use of courts for quenching dissent may discourage rulers from shutting down the judicial contestation arena and encourage them instead to appeal to less overbearing measures. This usually leads to a decline of the judiciary's proclivity to challenge the government, especially in salient cases. To illustrate these dynamics, I discuss the rise and fall of judicial power in Venezuela under Chávez's rule, focusing on the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Formerly the most powerful institution in the country's history, the Chamber briefly emerged as an influential actor at the beginning of the regime, but a comprehensive intervention of the judiciary in 2004 further politicized the court and effectively reduced its policy‐making role.     

中国司法改革过程中的重要探索——从构建中国特色的非法证据排除规则历程看中国司法改革

2010年5月30日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部联合宣布的两个证据规定的出台标志着具有中国特色的非法证据排除规则正式确立，从此，司法机关和侦查机关在实践中有了法律依据。这是我国司法改革中一件具有划时代意义的大事，也是构建我国非法证据排除规则和统一的刑事证据规则的重要步骤。本文重点探讨的是非法证据排除规定的具体内容及其对中国刑事司法改革的作用和我们的非法证据排除规定的特点。     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

Dubious delegation: Article III limits on mental health treatment decisions

A common condition of supervised release requires a defendant, post-incarceration, to participate in a mental health treatment program. Federal district courts often order probation officers to make certain decisions ancillary to these programs. However, Article III delegation doctrine places limits on such actions. This Note addresses the constitutionality of delegating the "treatment program" decision, in which a probation officer decides which type of treatment the defendant must undergo; the choice is often between inpatient treatment and other less restrictive alternatives. The resolution of this issue ultimately depends on whether this decision constitutes a "judicial act." Finding support in lower court case law, this Note argues that a "judicial act" encompasses decisions affecting the defendant's significant liberty interests. The Supreme Court case law and the mental health literature make clear that significant liberty interests are at stake in these "treatment program" decisions. Thus, delegating the "treatment program" decision to probation officers is unconstitutional under Article III. The Note concludes by suggesting a constitutionally permissible scheme whereby the judge orders a maximally intrusive treatment while giving the probation officer the discretion to choose a less restrictive program.     

刑事证据制度:从逻辑规则向程序规则的演进——以非法证据排除制度为切入点的分析

本文以非法证据排除制度为样本,对2012年刑事诉讼法修改后证据制度的发展和变革作了梳理,讨论了为规范司法机关诉讼活动,保障公民基本权利,在充分考虑中外法律传统、诉讼模式等方面差异,充分考虑国情并借鉴外国先进经验的基础上确立非法证据排除制度时的考量因素.非法证据排除制度的建立,体现了我国刑事证据制度从以逻辑推演规则为基础...     

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation*

The article traces the way admissibility jurisprudence following Daubert has come to emphasize the importance of strict judicial gatekeeping; making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in tort and product liability litigation. This exclusionary ethos appears to have been shaped by a range of values and interests which appear closely aligned to the perspectives promoted by corporate-sponsored proponents of tort and evidence reform. The effects of the exclusionary ethos are explored through an example of judicial gatekeeping in recent mobile telephone litigation and a review of judicial surveys of post- Daubert attitudes toward expert evidence. The role of corporate-sponsored amicus briefs in the influential Supreme Court Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v Carmichael appeal, extra-legal mobilization by conservative think tanks in litigation around electric and magnetic fields (EMF), and a qualitative citation analysis of federal court judgments, are then used in a preliminary attempt to trace the influence of corporate lobbying and social problem rhetorics on judicial attitudes and practice.