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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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

6. 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)

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

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

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

10. 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.

11. 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

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

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

14. 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.

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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?