AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 94

7.8. Criticism.-

The approach adopted by the Supreme Court of U.S.A. in relation to evidence procured by illegal search has provoked conflicting responses from those concerned with the administration and from academic writers. Speaking to the American Bar Association's1 1981 annual meeting in New Orleans, Vice President Bush decried the "lawyer who gets a brutal murderer acquitted by a deft use of exclusionary rule" and endorsed the call of the Attorney-General's Task Force on Violent Crime for a modification of the rule. A few weeks later, in New Orleans, President Reagan also backed the Task Force's recommendation and said that the rule was based on an "absurd proposition". As far back as 1971, Chief Justice Burger declared (in a dissent) that the rule results in the release of "countless guilty criminals".

1. William A. Gelner Is the Evidence in for the Exclusionary Rule?, (May 1981) 67 ABAJ 1642.

7.9. In contrast, a spokesman for the American Bar Association, urging the task force to support retention of the rule, recently asserted that the exclusionary rule (which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence against a criminal defendant), "has contributed to substantial law reform increased the professionalism of federal law enforcement officers (and) vastly enhanced the integrity of the federal judicial process."1

1. William A. Gelner Is the Evidence in for the Exclusionary Rule?, (May 1981) 67 ABAJ 1642.



Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly - Proposed Section 166a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys