Chapter Twelve: Disclosing and Suppressing Evidence

1. Chapter Twelve: Disclosing and Suppressing Evidence

2. Discovery • Informal and formal exchange of information between parties • Criminal Cases • Examples include: • lab reports; • statements of witnesses; • confessions • police reports

3. Law on the Books: Rules Requiring Disclosure • No general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case • too much prosecutorial disclosure may result in defendant’s taking undue advantage • Court decisions, statues, and court rules require disclosure • Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide defendant with rights to discovery • Tape recordings, books, papers, results of testing, summaries of expert witnesses

4. Discovery of exculpatory evidence • Evidence which may be in favor of the defendant at trial • Brady v. Maryland (1963) • exculpatory evidence must be given to defense • Brady Rule is limited to admissible evidence • Brady does not require the prosecution to make all files available to the defense • Post Brady revisions have narrowed the requirement to evidence that is “material” and would have been “persuasive and produced a reasonable doubt about guilt”

5. Discovery of impeachment evidence • Jencks v. United States (1957) • Inconsistent statements must be provided for a fair cross-examination • The Jencks Act • Prosecutor must disclose any witness statement in the government’s possession that relates to the subject matter of the witness’s testimony • Congress placed the burden on the defense to ask for the information • Giglio v. United States (1972)- • clarified all impeachment evidence falls under the Brady Rule

6. Law in Action: Informal Prosecutorial Disclosure • Discovery Rules are Important to Defense Attorneys • Save time • Eases the attorney client relationship • Greatly encourages guilty pleas • Guiding Principle: Trial Should be a Level Playing Field • Alibi Defense • Insanity Plea • Constitution limits reciprocal discovery

7. The Exclusionary Rule and The Supreme Court • Prohibits the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence at trial • Justified on Three Grounds • Courts should not participate in illegal conduct • Deters law enforcement misconduct • Other remedies (civil) are unworkable Developed in Weeks v. U.S. and incorporated to the states in Mapp v. Ohio

8. Three distinct exclusionary rules • Pretrial confrontations: identification of suspects or confessions/interrogations • Searches/seizures • “Fruit of the poisonous tree” – derivative evidence that is indirectly obtained as a result of a constitutional violation is also inadmissible

9. The Exclusionary Rule and Confessions • The Warren Court Changes the Rules • Miranda v. Arizona (1966) • You have the right to remain silent • Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law • You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him or her present with you while you are being questioned • If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish

10. The Exclusionary Rule and Confessions • The Burger and Rehnquist Courts Limit Miranda • Statements made under Miranda are inadmissible as substantive evidence • Public safety consideration • Incriminating statements • Questioning does not need to stop when ambiguous statement for counsel are made • Police can question based on an additional case

11. The Exclusionary Rule and Search and Seizure • The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure • Applies only to Federal Law Enforcement Officials (Weeks v. U.S., 1914 ) • Court refused to extend exclusionary rule to the states (Wolf v. Colorado, 1949) • Exclusionary rule extended to the states (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961)

12. The Exclusionary Rule and Search and Seizure • Exceptions • A person running at the sight of a police officer could justify the police conducting a stop-and frisk search (Illinois v. Wardlow 2000) • Police officers do not have to advise suspects that they have a right not to consent to a search ( U.S. v. Drayton 2002 )

13. The Exclusionary Rule and Search and Seizure • Limitations • Police cannot use a thermal imagining device to scan a building to detect the presence of high-intensity lamps used to grow marijuana (Kyllo v. U.S. 2001) • Police cannot stop and search a person for a gun solely on the basis of an anonymous tip (Florida v. J. L. 2000)

14. Search Warrants • Issued by a neutral judge • Supported by oath or affirmation asserting probable cause • Specifically describe the place to be search & people/things to be seized • Warrant review process does not operate as intended

15. Warrantless Searches • Most common type of search • Three forms of warrantless searches • Consent • Plain view • Incident to a lawful arrest