CHAPTER FouR • CiviL LibERTiEs 85
Exclusionary Rule
A judicial policy
prohibiting the admission
at trial of illegally seized
evidence.Trial Rights
n Speedy and public trial before a jury (Amendment VI).
n Impartial jury selected from a cross section of the community (Amendment VI).
n Trial atmosphere free of prejudice, fear, and outside interference.
n No compulsory self-incrimination (Amendment V).
n Adequate counsel (Amendment VI).
n No cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment VIII).
n Appeal of convictions.
n No double jeopardy (Amendment V).Extending the Rights of the Accused
During the 1960s, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, significantly
expanded the rights of accused persons. In a case decided in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright,^46
the Court held that if a person is accused of a felony and cannot afford an attorney, an
attorney must be made available to the accused person at the government’s expense.
Although the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides for the right to counsel, the
Supreme Court had previously held that only criminal defendants in capital cases auto-
matically had a right to free legal counsel.Miranda v. Arizona. In 1966, the Court issued its decision in Miranda v. Arizona.^47
The case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with the kidnapping and rape of a
young woman. After questioning, Miranda confessed and was later convicted. Miranda’s
lawyer appealed his conviction, arguing that the police had never informed Miranda that
he had a right to remain silent and a right to be represented by counsel. The Court, in rul-
ing in Miranda’s favor, enunciated the now-familiar Miranda rights. Today, Miranda rights
statements typically take the following form: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 speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford
an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they
have been read to you?Exceptions to the Miranda Rule. As part of a continuing attempt to balance the rights
of accused persons against the rights of society, the Supreme Court has made a number of
exceptions to the Miranda rule. As one example, in an important 1991 decision, the Court
stated that a suspect’s conviction will not be automatically overturned if the suspect was
coerced into making a confession. If the other evidence admitted at trial is strong enough
to justify the conviction without the confession, then the fact that the confession was
obtained illegally can be effectively ignored.^48The Exclusionary Rule
At least since 1914, judicial policy has prohibited the admission of illegally seized evidence
at trials in federal courts. This is the so-called exclusionary rule. Improperly obtained
evidence, no matter how telling, cannot be used by prosecutors. This includes evidence
obtained by police in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights or of the Fourth Amendment.46. 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
47. 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
9781285436388_04_ch04_066-091.indd 85 10/15/13 8:56 AM
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.