Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Legal Theory Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: Legal Theory BlogPettys on Exclusionary Rules
By Lawrence Solum
Todd E. Pettys (University of Iowa - College of Law) has posted The Immoral Application of Exclusionary Rules (Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In both civil and criminal cases today, judges routinely withhold relevant evidence from jurors, fearing that jurors would use it in an impermissible manner. Forcing jurors to take responsibility for a verdict based upon a government-screened pool of evidence stands in sharp contrast to the way we ordinarily think about government efforts to withhold potentially useful information from citizens faced with important decisions. The First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech, for example, reflects a moral judgment that the government offends its citizens' deliberative autonomy when it restricts speech based upon fears about what that speech might cause citizens to believe or about how that speech might cause citizens to behave. Drawing upon the work of Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Scanlon, and others, this Article contends that a court infringes upon jurors' autonomy in a morally problematic way when it refuses to admit relevant, readily available evidence. The Article argues that this infringement is especially troubling because jury service is a vital component of the American system of self-government, a domain in which citizens' autonomy interests are particularly strong. The Article focuses on three major exclusionary rules: the rule barring the admission of relevant evidence believed to pose a risk of unfair prejudice, the rule barring the admission of relevant hearsay, and the rule barring the admission of relevant character evidence when offered to prove how a person behaved on a particular occasion. The Article contends that, while there are occasions when applying these rules is morally permissible, the existing rules sweep far too broadly, infringing upon jurors' autonomy in ways that cannot be morally justified.
Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on March 17, 2008 (boomark / email).
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules

Is the Exclusionary Rule Consistent With Originalism:
Bundling as Exclusionary Pricing to Maintain Monopoly
Some Thoughts on Bundled Rebates and Exclusionary Policies
The Antitrust Standard for Unlawful Exclusionary Conduct
Exclusionary Pricing and Consumers Harm: The European Commission's Practice in the DSL Market
Originalism Does Not Support an Exclusionary Rule







