Article Image
News Link • Criminal Justice System

U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err

• New York Times

4 Comments in Response to

Comment by Chip Saunders
Entered on:
In my personal experience, I have yet to meet a single convict who was put away legally. That is not to say any of them were innocent. But in all the case materials I have inspected in the cases I have reviewed,...not a single one did not involve official misconduct somewhere along the way, and in each case, despite being brought to the judge**Q**s attention, such misconduct was NEVER smited. While small and insignificant sanctions were imposed so as to show the court at least took some notice and some reprimand was issued, in each instance this was done, it was carefully calculated to be CERTAIN to not actually jeapordize the prosecution**Q**s case. This is not just incredibly common, but standard practice in all courts I am aware of.

I was raised in the days when it was still muttered half-heartedly, **QQ**Better that 10 guilty men should go free, than 1 innocent man be unjustly imprisoned.**QQ** That idea was already dead then, but I grew up believing it was how things should be.

Raise the black flag and start slitting throats!

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

Why America? Because here we have Rights that supersede the government. If the thugs that work for the thugs are not punished by having any evidence and its trail to further evidence publicly tossed out when they violate our Right to be secure in our person and our possessions, then those thugs are free from any restraints to trample upon our Rights. In Canada they have outraged judges. In America we have embarrassed cops and prosecutors. Which would you choose?

Comment by Brock Lorber
Entered on:
Since Scalia penned that tripe, Radley Balko has been keeping close tabs on all the **QQ**isolated incidents**QQ** that cast unmistakable doubt on Scalia**Q**s **QQ**new professionalism**QQ**. (

There is no doubt in my mind that the exclusionary rule**Q**s days are numbered. In an era where the government**Q**s limitless hyperbolic **QQ**war**QQ** on a tactic that they alone define permits indefinite detention of persons they alone define as enemy combatants, the exclusionary rule will soon be a quaint anachronism.

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
I**Q**m interested in the thoughts of FreedomsPhoenix readers (you guys are very good :)

We have also added the ability to write letters to the editor that we are now beta testing and this would be a good subject for soliciting you input and testing our functionality of the new option

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: