Word: mapp
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...federal police were allowed to seize only four kinds of evidence: the loot of a crime; the tools by which it was committed; the means of escape, such as weapons; and contraband, such as counterfeit money. All else was inadmissible as "mere evidence." In 1961, ruling on Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ordered state as well as federal courts to exclude evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment...
...have "absolutely no control" over them because they belong to the executive branch of government. Other judges disagree: police are widely considered an integral part of the administration of justice. The Supreme Court's famous Mallory rule commands federal police to bring suspects promptly before U.S. commissioners. In Mapp (1961), Escobedo (1964) and Miranda (1966), the court in effect ordered all American police to maintain certain standards on pain of losing their evidence. Last week Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alfred Gittelson ordered all local police and prosecutors to obey an A.B.A.-style code of pretrial silence. He simply...
...however, Traynor forthrightly overruled himself in People v. Cahan, as the court imposed the exclusionary rule because "other remedies have completely failed" to stop lawless police action. Six years later, the Supreme Court itself followed Cahan and applied the rule to all American criminal courts (Mapp v. Ohio...
Significantly, it was Traynor who also eased the furor over Mapp by arguing in 1961 that the exclusionary rule should not be made retroactive. Its purpose, he noted, was to deter lawless police action from then on-not to help free prisoners who had been convicted on previously admissible evidence. Last year the Supreme Court followed precisely that reasoning in Linkletter v. Louisiana, which ruled out Mapp's retroactivity...
...criticism by holding that retroactivity depends on each decision's purpose. When a ruling concerns the right to counsel, as in Gideon, it is likely to be made retroactive, because it raises new questions about the prisoner's actual guilt. By contrast, the court refused to make Mapp retroactive because that decision had what lawyers call the "prophylactic" purpose of deterring lawless police action in the future...