Cheryl Stein has a nice op-ed in the Washington Times regarding Herring v. United States, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday. (Today is the first Monday in October -- Yippeee!) It raises the following question: whether courts must suppress evidence seized during an arrest made as a result of faulty information provided by another law enforcement agency.
Stein argues that the Supreme Court should not abandon the exclusionary rule. Here is her conclusion:
The contention that we should not allow a blunder by the police to confer a benefit on a criminal defendant would be reasonable only if most illegal searches are the result of good-faith mistakes. The sad fact is, however, that the vast majority of illegal searches are the result of deliberate misconduct by the police.
Political commentators and law professors who have never been in a courtroom except to defend their own traffic tickets may not understand that fact, but every practicing criminal defense lawyer knows it to be true. The rule provides the only legal brake on police misconduct. Without its sanctions, the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches would be empty.
Finally, the critics fail to address one of the most important reasons the rule was adopted in the first place: to preserve the integrity of our court system. The Supreme Court explained its necessity more than 40 years ago: "If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." The rule "gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice." To forget that teaching is to abandon all that is best and brightest about our system of government.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
12 comments:
This rule not only needs to be upheld, but its reasoning needs to be expanded to Brady materials in a different manner.
I have become disillusioned with the manner in which DOJ and in particular the office in the SD Fla is run in relation to Brady.
In general (there are those who certainly do not fit into this generality) the SD Fla AUSAs will reason their way around any item being useful to the defense as Brady material...the sanction from the courts: NADA. The sanction from the office hierarchy: NADA.
This type of behavior recently reared its ugly head in the Stevens trial in D.C. leading the court to question the public integrity section of the US Atty's office's integrity. Perhaps the prosecutor simply made a mistake, perhaps she was from the SD Fla and was poorly trained, but it is still Disgusting.
It is time the courts to adopt a black and white rule requiring new trials for any defendant convicted upon discovery of a Brady violation - prejudice be damned.
Which is worse: the innocent, yet mistaken, prosecutor who errs like the lady in D.C., and withholds a major piece of Brady, or the AUSA lacking in integrity who withholds a minor piece of evidence, of minimal value to the defense, because he/she wants to maintain every advantage.
If you believe this criticism is unwarranted, then I invite anybody to describe the training program and criteria that are in place at the US Atty's Office, SD Fla., reference Brady.
YOU NEED ONE.
10:02 what kind of liberal are you. I'll bet that if you were the victim of a crime you would want the AUSA handling your case to not open up his file to the defense lawyer and defendant.
markus what happened in your big mob trial in west palm beach
came in second...
Is it just me or has this blog recently become heavily censored. Had you been following this particular thread, you would find that Marcus was called out on his loss, that to readers came to his defense, that one reader criticized 3:55, and who knows what else, and that each of the above comments was deleted.
9:45-- This is David's blog and he can do whatever he wants.
9:45, it kind of reminds me of the discovery you get from an AUSA. Heavy felt pen. How do you like it.
I am 9:45.
11:12 - I like the blog and Markus can do what he wants with it. It was just an observation of fact. That said, he might generate more traffic and loyal readership if his censorship was a little less heavy handed. Then again, maybe he doesn't want his blog ending up like the zoo that is run by Rumpole.
11:38 - I think your comments somehow implied that I am an AUSA. I am not (for whatever that is worth).
The comment left by 9:45, I don't see the problem with it. It's true.
BTW, why does it bother some people if David erased some comments?
5:43, agreed. How different is it from someone who moderates their comments? Why is this even an issue?
Post a Comment