By Mark E. Cammack (auth.), Stephen C. Thaman (eds.)
This ebook is a comparative examine of the exclusion of illegally amassed proof within the felony trial , consisting of 15 nation reports, a bankruptcy at the eu court docket of Human Rights, and a comparative artificial end. No different publication has undertaken this type of huge comparative learn of exclusionary principles, that have now develop into a world-wide phenomenon. the subject is likely one of the so much debatable in felony process legislation, since it unearths a continuing rigidity among the legal court’s responsibility to envision the reality, at the one hand, and its accountability to uphold vital constitutional rights at the different, most significantly, the privilege opposed to self-incrimination and the suitable to privateness in one's domestic and one's deepest communications.
The chapters have been contributed by way of famous international specialists at the topic for the XVIII Congress of the foreign Academy of Comparative legislation in Washington in July 2010.
Read or Download Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law PDF
Best comparative books
This quantity demanding situations the traditional knowledge approximately judicial independence in China and its courting to monetary progress, rule of legislations, human rights defense, and democracy. the quantity adopts an interdisciplinary method that areas China's judicial reforms and the fight to augment the professionalism, authority, and independence of the judiciary inside a broader comparative and developmental framework.
This research is an research into the comparative phonology and lexicon of six barely-known Bantu kinds spoken in Kenya. those kinds (Imenti, Igoji, Tharaka, Mwimbi, Muthambi and Chuka) belong to the so-called Meru team. The learn develops a brand new type of those six dialects. for that reason, a dialectological method is used, consisting of the research of wordlists and lists of brief words elicited within the box.
- Compensation for Personal Injury in English, German and Italian Law: A Comparative Outline (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law)
- Comparative Chemical Mutagenesis
- Biochemistry of Parasitic Helminths
- Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective
- The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe: A Comparative Study
- Third-Party Liability of Classification Societies: A Comparative Perspective
Additional info for Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law
The USSC released its much-anticipated decision in Dickerson v. United States114 in 2000. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist—the author of the opinion that had first described Miranda warnings as prophylactic safeguards rather than constitutional rights—rejected the argument that the case had been overruled. In an effort to navigate a course that would permit it to uphold the Miranda decision without disavowing the decisions that impugned its foundations the Court sought to finesse the issue of Miranda’s constitutional underpinnings by describing it as a 111 Ibid, 310–311.
533 (1988). E. Cammack marijuana inside a particular warehouse. Without obtaining a search warrant, the police forced entry into the warehouse where they observed large quantities of drugs. There was no one inside the warehouse at the time of the entry, and the police left the marijuana undisturbed. The police then proceeded to apply for a warrant. The warrant was approved 8 h after the initial entry, and the police returned to the warehouse where they seized the marijuana. The USSC’s analysis of the applicability of the independent source doctrine to these facts focused on an assessment of the costs and benefits of exclusion.
Because the USSC is the final authority on the meaning of the constitution, and because the Court’s decision in Miranda was commonly understood as a statement of what the constitution requires, the 1968 statute was for many years dismissed as an empty gesture. That began to change, however, as the Court’s repeated characterization of the Miranda warnings as a prophylactic safeguard and the Court’s statements that a violation of those safeguards is not a violation of the constitution raised doubts about the constitutional foundations of the decision.