File #2685: "2019_Book_DoExclusionaryRulesEnsureAFair.pdf"
Text
1|Acknowledgements|6
1|Contents|7
1|Editors and Contributors|9
1|Abbreviations|11
1|Keywords|15
1|1 Introduction|16
2|Abstract|16
2|1 Criminal Justice as a Barometer of Social Developments|16
2|2 Criminal Trials and Human Rights|17
2|3 Exclusionary Rules as Safeguards|20
2|4 Comparative Perspectives on Exclusionary Rules|21
2|5 Core Issues Surrounding the Effectiveness of Exclusionary Rules|24
2|References|25
2|Books|25
2|Journal Articles|25
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|25
1|Comparative Perspectives|27
1|2 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Swiss Perspective|28
2|Abstract|28
2|1 Introduction|28
2|2 Establishing Facts in Swiss Criminal Proceedings|30
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|30
4|2.1.1 General Rules|30
5|2.1.1.1 Duties in Criminal Investigations|31
5|2.1.1.2 Securing a Fair Trial|32
5|2.1.1.3 Balancing Fact-Finding and Individual Rights|34
4|2.1.2 Establishing the Facts, Procedural Rules, and Stages|37
4|2.1.3 Establishing the Facts: Actors and Accountability|39
5|2.1.3.1 Primary Actors|39
5|2.1.3.2 Supervision of Judicial Authorities and Legal Remedies|41
5|2.1.3.3 Liability of the State and Legal Officials for Improper Compulsion in Criminal Investigations|43
4|2.1.4 Establishing the Facts: Institutional Safeguards|44
3|2.2 Relevance of the Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|46
4|2.2.1 Public Interest in Determining the Truth|46
4|2.2.2 Presenting the “Truth” to the Public|46
4|2.2.3 Miscarriages of Justice|47
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding with Exclusionary Rules in Switzerland|48
3|3.1 Exclusionary Rules in Swiss Criminal Proceedings|48
4|3.1.1 Rationale|48
4|3.1.2 The CPC’s System of Exclusionary Rules|49
4|3.1.3 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|53
4|3.1.4 Enforcement of Exclusionary Rules|55
3|3.2 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence Following Improper Compulsory Techniques|59
4|3.2.1 The Right Against Self-Incrimination and Improper Compulsory Measures|59
4|3.2.2 Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment|60
4|3.2.3 Institutional Bans on Torture and the Right to Remain Silent|61
4|3.2.4 Exclusionary Rules Applicable to Illegally Obtained Evidence|61
5|3.2.4.1 Legal Framework|61
5|3.2.4.2 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|62
4|3.2.5 Admissibility of Fruit of Poisonous Tree in Cases of Torture and Improper Compulsory Techniques|62
5|3.2.5.1 Legal Framework|62
5|3.2.5.2 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|64
4|3.2.6 The Effect of International Human Rights Law|66
2|4 Statistics|67
2|5 Conclusion|68
2|References|70
2|Books|70
2|Journal Articles|70
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|71
2|Reports, Legislative History|72
1|3 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective|74
2|Abstract|74
2|1 Introduction|74
2|2 General Framework for Establishing Facts in Criminal Proceedings|75
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|76
4|2.1.1 General Rules|76
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining Duties in Criminal Investigations|76
5|2.1.1.2 Law Securing a Fair Trial|77
5|2.1.1.3 Other Individual Rights with Relevance for the Criminal Process|78
5|2.1.1.4 Law Balancing the Search for Evidence and Infringements of Individual Rights|80
4|2.1.2 Establishing Facts—Stages and Rules|80
4|2.1.3 Establishing Facts—Actors and Accountability|81
4|2.1.4 Establishing Facts—Institutional Safeguards|82
3|2.2 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|83
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|83
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Facts” Respectively “Fact-Finding” And/Or “Truth” to the Public|84
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|84
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|85
3|3.1 General Rules on Taking Evidence (Admissibility of Evidence)|85
4|3.1.1 Legal Framework|85
5|3.1.1.1 Legal Framework for Taking Evidence and Admissibility of Evidence|85
5|3.1.1.2 Practice and Jurisprudence|86
5|3.1.1.3 Consequences of a Violation of Exclusionary Rules|87
4|3.1.2 Debate on Exclusionary Rules|89
4|3.1.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing Individual Rights|89
3|3.2 Evidence Obtained by Torture|89
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture and Inhuman Treatment|90
4|3.2.2 Definition of Privilege Against Self-incrimination|91
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence Obtained by Torture|93
5|3.2.3.1 Procedure|93
5|3.2.3.2 Exclusionary Rules in Public Debate|94
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture|94
4|3.2.5 Exclusion of Evidence and Other Remedies Following a Breach of the Ban on Torture|95
4|3.2.6 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture|97
3|3.3 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence—Cases of Undue Coercion|98
4|3.3.1 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Right to Remain Silent|98
4|3.3.2 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Privilege Against Self-incrimination|99
4|3.3.3 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|100
2|4 Statistics|100
2|5 Conclusion|100
2|References|102
2|Books|102
2|Journal Articles|102
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|104
1|4 Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for the Truth|106
2|Abstract|106
2|1 Introduction|106
2|2 Fact-Finding Procedure: Stages, Rules, and Actors|107
3|2.1 Stages and Rules|107
3|2.2 Actors and Accountability|109
2|3 General Framework for Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|112
3|3.1 Law Relating to the Search for Truth|112
3|3.2 Law Protecting Individual Rights|114
3|3.3 Law Balancing the Search for Truth and Individual Rights Protections|117
3|3.4 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|120
4|3.4.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|120
4|3.4.2 Presentation of Factfinding to the Public|121
4|3.4.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|123
2|4 Constitutional Limitations on the Admissibility of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings|124
3|4.1 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Limits on Admissibility of Confessions|124
3|4.2 Sixth Amendment Limits on Admissibility of Confessions|128
3|4.3 The Miranda Safeguards Against Coerced Confessions|130
3|4.4 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture or Undue Coercion|134
3|4.5 Debate on Exclusionary Rules|135
2|5 Conclusion|138
2|References|139
2|Books|139
2|Journal Articles|140
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|141
2|Reports, Legislative History|141
1|5 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Taiwanese Perspective|143
2|Abstract|143
2|1 Introduction|144
2|2 General Framework for Establishing Facts in Criminal Proceedings|145
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|145
4|2.1.1 General Rules|145
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining Duties in Criminal Investigations|146
5|2.1.1.2 Laws Securing a Fair Trial|147
5|2.1.1.3 Laws Balancing the Search for the Truth and Infringements of Individual Rights|147
4|2.1.2 Establishing Facts—Stages and Rules|148
4|2.1.3 Establishing Facts—Actors and Accountability|149
3|2.2 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|150
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|150
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Facts”, “Fact-Finding” and/or “Truth” to the Public|150
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|152
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|153
3|3.1 General Rules of Evidence Taking (Admissibility of Evidence)|154
4|3.1.1 Specific Exclusionary Rules of the CCP|154
5|3.1.1.1 Confessions Collected During Specific Periods of Time Mandated by Law or at Night (Art. 158-2 Para. 1 of the CCP)|155
5|3.1.1.2 Right to Remain Silent and Access to a Defense Attorney (Art. 158-2 Para. 2 of the CCP)|156
4|3.1.2 Specific Exclusionary Rules of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act|156
4|3.1.3 General Exclusionary Rules of the CCP|157
3|3.2 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Undue Coercion|159
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture, Undue Coercion and Degrading Punishment|159
4|3.2.2 Definitions of Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination|159
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence (Possibly) Obtained by Torture and Undue Coercion|160
5|3.2.3.1 Legal Framework|160
5|3.2.3.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|160
5|Protecting Human Dignity of the Defendant and His Status as a Party|160
5|Safeguarding the Liberty of Decision Making and Mental Activities of the Defendant|161
5|Deterrence from Illegal Investigatory Activity Based on the Principle of the Due Process of Law|161
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture Undue Coercion|161
4|3.2.5 Exclusion of Evidence or Other Remedies Following a Breach of the Ban on Torture and Undue Coercion|162
4|3.2.6 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture and Undue Coercion|162
5|3.2.6.1 Legal Framework|162
5|3.2.6.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|163
4|3.2.7 Effect of International Human Rights|163
2|4 Statistics|164
2|5 Conclusion|165
2|Sec38|166
2|References|172
1|6 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Chinese Perspective|174
2|Abstract|174
2|1 Introduction|174
2|2 General Framework for Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|176
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|177
4|2.1.1 General Rules|178
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining a Duty to Search for the Truth|178
5|2.1.1.2 Law Securing a Fair Trial and/or Individual Rights|179
5|Constitutional Rules|179
5|Statutory Rules|179
5|International Human Rights Law|182
5|2.1.1.3 Law Balancing a Duty to Determine the Truth and Infringements on Individual Rights|185
4|2.1.2 Fact-Finding Procedure—Stages and Rules|187
4|2.1.3 Fact-Finding Procedure—Actors and Accountability|188
3|2.2 Social Relevance of the Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|190
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|190
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Fact-Finding” and/or “Truth” to the Public|192
5|2.2.2.1 Publicity of Fact-Finding Before a Judgment|192
5|2.2.2.2 Existence of Court TV|193
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|193
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|195
3|3.1 General Rules of Evidence Taking (Admissibility of Evidence)|195
4|3.1.1 Legal Framework|195
5|3.1.1.1 Legal Framework for Evidence Taking/Admissibility of Evidence|195
5|Legal Framework and Its Context on the Books|195
5|The Development and Reforms of Chinese Rules on Evidence Exclusion|197
5|The Impact of Exclusionary Rules on the Actors Within Criminal Proceedings|197
5|The Justification of Exclusionary Rules in Paper Law|198
5|The Mandatory or Discretionary Feature of Exclusionary Rules|198
5|No Acknowledgment of the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine|198
5|The Significance of International Human Rights Law in the Chinese Context|199
5|3.1.1.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|199
5|On the Judicial Acceptance of a General “Exclusionary Rule”|199
5|On the Judicial Acceptance of the Duty to Find the Truth|199
5|The Justifications of Exclusionary Rules and Their Application in Specific Cases|200
5|3.1.1.3 Consequences of a Violation of Exclusionary Rules|200
4|3.1.2 Debate on Exclusionary Rules (in Civil Society, etc.)|201
5|3.1.2.1 The Public Debate on Exclusionary Rules|201
5|3.1.2.2 The Role of the International Monitoring Bodies’ Report on the Debate|204
4|3.1.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing Exclusionary Rules|205
3|3.2 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|205
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture and Degrading Punishment|205
4|3.2.2 Definitions of Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination|206
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence (Possibly) Obtained by Torture|207
5|3.2.3.1 Legal Framework|207
5|3.2.3.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|210
5|3.2.3.3 Exclusionary Rules in Public Debate|211
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture|211
4|3.2.5 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture|214
5|3.2.5.1 Legal Framework|214
5|3.2.5.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|214
4|3.2.6 Effect of International Law (Human Rights)|214
4|3.2.7 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|214
3|3.3 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence—Cases of Undue Coercion|215
4|3.3.1 Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination and Undue Coercion|215
4|3.3.2 Exclusionary Rules for Illegally Gathered Evidence in Cases of Undue Coercion (Other Than Torture)|215
5|3.3.2.1 Legal Framework|215
5|3.3.2.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|216
4|3.3.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Right to Remain Silent|216
4|3.3.4 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Undue Coercion|216
5|3.3.4.1 Legal Framework|216
5|3.3.4.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|216
4|3.3.5 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|216
2|4 Statistics|217
2|5 Conclusion|219
2|Books|219
2|Journal Articles|220
2|Internet Links for UN-Documents|221
2|Case List|222
1|7 Criminal Justice and the Exclusion of Incriminating Statements in Singapore|223
2|Abstract|223
2|1 Introduction|223
2|2 Overview of Criminal Proceedings|225
3|2.1 Stages|225
4|2.1.1 Investigation, Decision to Prosecute, Procedural Preliminaries|225
4|2.1.2 Plea-Negotiation|226
4|2.1.3 Pre-trial|227
4|2.1.4 Trial|228
4|2.1.5 Post-trial|230
3|2.2 Actors: Duties and Accountability|231
4|2.2.1 Police Officers|231
4|2.2.2 Prosecutors|232
4|2.2.3 Defence Counsel|233
4|2.2.4 Judges|234
3|2.3 Constitutional Rights in the Criminal Process|235
4|2.3.1 Right to Counsel|235
4|2.3.2 Right not to Deprived of Life or Personal Liberty Save in Accordance with Law|236
2|3 Social Interest in Criminal Justice|237
3|3.1 Media Publicity and Public Comments|237
3|3.2 Public Interest in Miscarriages of Justice|238
2|4 Incriminating Statements by the Accused: Relevant Rules of Evidence and Procedure|239
3|4.1 Rules on the Obtaining of Evidence|240
3|4.2 The Privilege Against Self-incrimination and the Right of Silence|241
3|4.3 Rules on Admissibility of Evidence|243
2|5 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|243
3|5.1 Definition of Torture|243
3|5.2 Prohibition Against Torture and the Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|244
2|6 Exclusion of Statements Obtained from the Accused by Undue Pressure|245
3|6.1 Voluntariness as a Condition of Admissibility|245
3|6.2 Doctrine of Oppression|246
3|6.3 Burden of Proof|248
3|6.4 Discretion to Exclude Wrongfully Obtained Statements|249
2|7 Admissibility and Effect of Derivative Evidence|252
2|8 Effect of International Law on Human Rights|252
3|8.1 International/Human Rights Law|252
3|8.2 Universal Periodic Review|253
2|9 Safeguards|255
2|10 Statistics|256
3|10.1 Statistics on Police Dismissals, Internal Investigations and Actions Against Officers|257
3|10.2 Exclusion of Statements|258
3|10.3 Conviction and Acquittal Rates|258
2|11 Conclusion|259
2|12 Addendum|260
2|References|260
2|Books|260
2|Journal articles|260
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|261
1|Exclusionary Rules—Quo Vadis|263
1|8 The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview|264
2|Abstract|264
2|1 Introduction|264
2|2 Rationales of Exclusionary Rules|266
3|2.1 Finding the Truth|266
3|2.2 Upholding Judicial Integrity|267
3|2.3 Deterring Police Misconduct|268
3|2.4 Human Rights Considerations|270
2|3 Ideal Types of Exclusionary Systems|272
3|3.1 Ideal Type “System Integrity”|272
4|3.1.1 Balancing Interests|272
4|3.1.2 Type of Right Violated|273
4|3.1.3 Good Faith Exception|273
4|3.1.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|274
4|3.1.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|275
4|3.1.6 Summary|275
3|3.2 Ideal Type “Deterrence”|275
4|3.2.1 Balancing Interests|275
4|3.2.2 Type of Right Violated|276
4|3.2.3 Good Faith Exception|276
4|3.2.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|277
4|3.2.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|277
4|3.2.6 Summary|277
3|3.3 Ideal Type “Vindication of Individual Rights”|278
4|3.3.1 Balancing Interests|278
4|3.3.2 Type of Right Violated|278
4|3.3.3 Good Faith Exception|278
4|3.3.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|278
4|3.3.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|279
4|3.3.6 Summary|279
2|4 Choice of Rationale and Its Consequences|279
3|4.1 Legal Systems Based on the “System Integrity” Rationale|280
3|4.2 Legal Systems Based on the “Deterrence” Rationale|282
3|4.3 Legal Systems Based on the Human Rights Rationale|284
3|4.4 Mixed Systems|286
2|5 Conclusion: Aligning Doctrines with Rationales?|288
2|References|289
2|Books|289
2|Journal Articles|289
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|290
1|9 The Fair Trial Rationale for Excluding Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|292
2|Abstract|292
2|1 Introduction|292
2|2 European Convention on Human Rights|293
3|2.1 Introduction|293
3|2.2 Approach to exclusion under article 6(1) of the Convention|294
3|2.3 Possible Theoretical Bases|297
2|3 England|299
3|3.1 Common Law Approach to Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|299
3|3.2 Fair Trial Rationale and Its Limitations|302
3|3.3 Position Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE 1984’)|303
3|3.4 Reliability Interpretation of Fair Trial and Its Limitations|304
2|4 Singapore|306
3|4.1 Introduction|306
3|4.2 Admissibility of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|306
3|4.3 Discretion to Exclude Admissible Evidence to Ensure a Fair Trial|308
3|4.4 Other Rationales|309
3|4.5 Evaluation|310
2|5 Conclusion|311
2|References|312
2|Books|312
2|Journal Articles|313
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|313
1|10 Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: Observation from Historical and Empirical Perspectives|315
2|Abstract|315
2|1 The Evolution of China’s Exclusionary Rules|316
3|1.1 Budding Stage: 1979–1996|316
3|1.2 Development Stage: 2010 to Date|319
3|1.3 Observations of the Development of Legislations|321
2|2 Empirical Analysis of China’s Exclusionary Rules: Are They Effectively Implemented in Practice?|322
3|2.1 Overall Trend: From “Extremely Cold” to “Modestly Warm”|324
3|2.2 Defendants Increasingly Apply for Exclusion of Illegal Evidence, and Chances of Success Are Low but Growing|326
3|2.3 Courts Excluded Much More Testimonial Evidence Than Tangible Evidence|327
3|2.4 Most Defendants Prefer Challenging Illegal Evidence Only at the Trial Stage|328
3|2.5 Few but Increasing Numbers of Exclusions of Illegal Evidence Impact Case Outcomes|328
2|3 What Causes the Gap Between Exclusionary Rules in the Books and in the Action?|330
3|3.1 Police Wrongdoings Are Not Routine in China|330
3|3.2 Discord Between Chinese Culture and Implanted Institutions|331
4|3.2.1 Trusting the Government Versus Guarding Against the Government|332
4|3.2.2 Substantive Truth Versus Procedural Fairness|332
4|3.2.3 Individual Rights Versus Public Interest|333
2|4 The Future of China’s Exclusionary Rules|334
3|4.1 Overall Assessment|334
3|4.2 Short-Term and Long-Term Projections|335
2|References|335
1|11 Securing a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules: Do Theory and Practice Form a Well-Balanced Whole?|337
2|Abstract|337
2|1 Theory and Practice|338
2|2 Data Collection and Analysis|338
3|2.1 Collection of Data|338
3|2.2 Data Analysis|340
2|3 Do Theory and Practice Form a Well-Balanced Whole?|341
3|3.1 Theoretical Considerations|341
3|3.2 Legal Rules in Practice|342
4|3.2.1 Function of Exclusionary Rules|342
4|3.2.2 Frequency of Exclusionary Rules in Practice|343
4|3.2.3 Kind of Exclusionary Rules in Practice|344
3|3.3 Difficulties and Limitations to Secure a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules|345
4|3.3.1 Difficulties in Applying the Law|345
4|3.3.2 Limitations of Safeguarding a Fair Trial|346
5|3.3.2.1 Subjective Assessments and Balancing Process|346
5|3.3.2.2 Credibility and Proof of Violations of Rules|347
5|3.3.2.3 Extend of Protection|348
5|3.3.2.4 Knowledge of the Excluded Evidence|348
5|3.3.2.5 Responsibilities and Control|349
3|3.4 Compliance with Rules to Obtain Evidence|349
4|3.4.1 Motivation of Norm Compliance and Awareness of Illegally Obtained Evidence|350
4|3.4.2 Protective Measure to Safeguard the Legal Obtainment of Evidence|351
5|3.4.2.1 Legal Consequences for Police Officers|351
5|3.4.2.2 Legal Consequences for the Affected Person|351
5|3.4.2.3 Control Measures: Physical Examinations, Recording of Interrogations, Participation of Lawyers|352
5|3.4.2.4 Practical Measures and Incentives|352
5|3.4.2.5 Training of Police Officers and Communication|353
2|4 Conclusion|353
2|References|354
2|Books|354
2|Journal articles|354
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|354
2|Interviews|355
1|12 Exclusionary Rules—Is It Time for Change?|356
2|Abstract|356
2|1 Exclusionary Rules—Efficient Tools or Illusory Giants (紙老虎)?|356
3|1.1 Standards for the Evaluation of Exclusionary Rules|357
3|1.2 Structural Inefficiency in Exclusionary Rules|359
4|1.2.1 Limited Scope: Are Only the Guilty Protected?|359
4|1.2.2 Between a Rock and a Hard Place|360
4|1.2.3 Empty Threats? Exclusionary Rules as Deterrents|362
3|1.3 To Replace or Enhance Exclusionary Rules?|363
2|2 Are Exclusionary Rules Inherently Disadvantaged?|363
3|2.1 Institutional Framework|363
3|2.2 Pitfalls Across Legal Systems|364
4|2.2.1 In Pursuit of the Truth|364
4|2.2.2 Record Keeping and the Role of the Prosecution|365
4|2.2.3 Checks and Balances: Supervision of Evidence Gathering|366
4|2.2.4 Procedural Protections for Defendants|366
4|2.2.5 Effective Remedies|367
3|2.3 Legislative Techniques to Promote Efficient Exclusionary Rules|367
4|2.3.1 Improving Statutory Structure|367
4|2.3.2 Exclusion of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree|368
3|2.4 Interim Conclusion|369
2|3 Alternatives to Exclusionary Rules|369
3|3.1 Decriminalization|370
3|3.2 Preventative Measures: Establishing Incentives and Reducing Barriers to Procedural Compliance|370
4|3.2.1 Improved Law Enforcement Training|371
4|3.2.2 Stress Management Programs|371
4|3.2.3 Incentive Systems|372
4|3.2.4 Elimination of Quotas|372
4|3.2.5 Monitoring Evidence Gathering|373
4|3.2.6 Injunctive Relief|373
4|3.2.7 Interim Conclusion|373
3|3.3 Other Means of Holding Law Enforcement Accountable|374
4|3.3.1 Claims Under Tort Law|374
4|3.3.2 Official Apologies|375
4|3.3.3 Criminal Prosecution|375
4|3.3.4 Other Sanctions|376
4|3.3.5 Interim Conclusion|376
3|3.4 Sentence Reductions|377
4|3.4.1 Advantages|378
4|3.4.2 Shortcomings|378
3|3.5 Amnesty and Pardons|380
3|3.6 Case Dismissals|380
3|3.7 Interim Conclusion|381
2|4 Conclusion|382
2|References|383
2|Books|383
2|Journal Articles|383
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|385
1|Contents|7
1|Editors and Contributors|9
1|Abbreviations|11
1|Keywords|15
1|1 Introduction|16
2|Abstract|16
2|1 Criminal Justice as a Barometer of Social Developments|16
2|2 Criminal Trials and Human Rights|17
2|3 Exclusionary Rules as Safeguards|20
2|4 Comparative Perspectives on Exclusionary Rules|21
2|5 Core Issues Surrounding the Effectiveness of Exclusionary Rules|24
2|References|25
2|Books|25
2|Journal Articles|25
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|25
1|Comparative Perspectives|27
1|2 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Swiss Perspective|28
2|Abstract|28
2|1 Introduction|28
2|2 Establishing Facts in Swiss Criminal Proceedings|30
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|30
4|2.1.1 General Rules|30
5|2.1.1.1 Duties in Criminal Investigations|31
5|2.1.1.2 Securing a Fair Trial|32
5|2.1.1.3 Balancing Fact-Finding and Individual Rights|34
4|2.1.2 Establishing the Facts, Procedural Rules, and Stages|37
4|2.1.3 Establishing the Facts: Actors and Accountability|39
5|2.1.3.1 Primary Actors|39
5|2.1.3.2 Supervision of Judicial Authorities and Legal Remedies|41
5|2.1.3.3 Liability of the State and Legal Officials for Improper Compulsion in Criminal Investigations|43
4|2.1.4 Establishing the Facts: Institutional Safeguards|44
3|2.2 Relevance of the Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|46
4|2.2.1 Public Interest in Determining the Truth|46
4|2.2.2 Presenting the “Truth” to the Public|46
4|2.2.3 Miscarriages of Justice|47
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding with Exclusionary Rules in Switzerland|48
3|3.1 Exclusionary Rules in Swiss Criminal Proceedings|48
4|3.1.1 Rationale|48
4|3.1.2 The CPC’s System of Exclusionary Rules|49
4|3.1.3 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|53
4|3.1.4 Enforcement of Exclusionary Rules|55
3|3.2 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence Following Improper Compulsory Techniques|59
4|3.2.1 The Right Against Self-Incrimination and Improper Compulsory Measures|59
4|3.2.2 Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment|60
4|3.2.3 Institutional Bans on Torture and the Right to Remain Silent|61
4|3.2.4 Exclusionary Rules Applicable to Illegally Obtained Evidence|61
5|3.2.4.1 Legal Framework|61
5|3.2.4.2 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|62
4|3.2.5 Admissibility of Fruit of Poisonous Tree in Cases of Torture and Improper Compulsory Techniques|62
5|3.2.5.1 Legal Framework|62
5|3.2.5.2 Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court|64
4|3.2.6 The Effect of International Human Rights Law|66
2|4 Statistics|67
2|5 Conclusion|68
2|References|70
2|Books|70
2|Journal Articles|70
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|71
2|Reports, Legislative History|72
1|3 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective|74
2|Abstract|74
2|1 Introduction|74
2|2 General Framework for Establishing Facts in Criminal Proceedings|75
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|76
4|2.1.1 General Rules|76
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining Duties in Criminal Investigations|76
5|2.1.1.2 Law Securing a Fair Trial|77
5|2.1.1.3 Other Individual Rights with Relevance for the Criminal Process|78
5|2.1.1.4 Law Balancing the Search for Evidence and Infringements of Individual Rights|80
4|2.1.2 Establishing Facts—Stages and Rules|80
4|2.1.3 Establishing Facts—Actors and Accountability|81
4|2.1.4 Establishing Facts—Institutional Safeguards|82
3|2.2 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|83
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|83
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Facts” Respectively “Fact-Finding” And/Or “Truth” to the Public|84
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|84
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|85
3|3.1 General Rules on Taking Evidence (Admissibility of Evidence)|85
4|3.1.1 Legal Framework|85
5|3.1.1.1 Legal Framework for Taking Evidence and Admissibility of Evidence|85
5|3.1.1.2 Practice and Jurisprudence|86
5|3.1.1.3 Consequences of a Violation of Exclusionary Rules|87
4|3.1.2 Debate on Exclusionary Rules|89
4|3.1.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing Individual Rights|89
3|3.2 Evidence Obtained by Torture|89
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture and Inhuman Treatment|90
4|3.2.2 Definition of Privilege Against Self-incrimination|91
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence Obtained by Torture|93
5|3.2.3.1 Procedure|93
5|3.2.3.2 Exclusionary Rules in Public Debate|94
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture|94
4|3.2.5 Exclusion of Evidence and Other Remedies Following a Breach of the Ban on Torture|95
4|3.2.6 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture|97
3|3.3 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence—Cases of Undue Coercion|98
4|3.3.1 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Right to Remain Silent|98
4|3.3.2 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Privilege Against Self-incrimination|99
4|3.3.3 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|100
2|4 Statistics|100
2|5 Conclusion|100
2|References|102
2|Books|102
2|Journal Articles|102
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|104
1|4 Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for the Truth|106
2|Abstract|106
2|1 Introduction|106
2|2 Fact-Finding Procedure: Stages, Rules, and Actors|107
3|2.1 Stages and Rules|107
3|2.2 Actors and Accountability|109
2|3 General Framework for Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|112
3|3.1 Law Relating to the Search for Truth|112
3|3.2 Law Protecting Individual Rights|114
3|3.3 Law Balancing the Search for Truth and Individual Rights Protections|117
3|3.4 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|120
4|3.4.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|120
4|3.4.2 Presentation of Factfinding to the Public|121
4|3.4.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|123
2|4 Constitutional Limitations on the Admissibility of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings|124
3|4.1 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Limits on Admissibility of Confessions|124
3|4.2 Sixth Amendment Limits on Admissibility of Confessions|128
3|4.3 The Miranda Safeguards Against Coerced Confessions|130
3|4.4 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture or Undue Coercion|134
3|4.5 Debate on Exclusionary Rules|135
2|5 Conclusion|138
2|References|139
2|Books|139
2|Journal Articles|140
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|141
2|Reports, Legislative History|141
1|5 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Taiwanese Perspective|143
2|Abstract|143
2|1 Introduction|144
2|2 General Framework for Establishing Facts in Criminal Proceedings|145
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|145
4|2.1.1 General Rules|145
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining Duties in Criminal Investigations|146
5|2.1.1.2 Laws Securing a Fair Trial|147
5|2.1.1.3 Laws Balancing the Search for the Truth and Infringements of Individual Rights|147
4|2.1.2 Establishing Facts—Stages and Rules|148
4|2.1.3 Establishing Facts—Actors and Accountability|149
3|2.2 Social Relevance of Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|150
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|150
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Facts”, “Fact-Finding” and/or “Truth” to the Public|150
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|152
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|153
3|3.1 General Rules of Evidence Taking (Admissibility of Evidence)|154
4|3.1.1 Specific Exclusionary Rules of the CCP|154
5|3.1.1.1 Confessions Collected During Specific Periods of Time Mandated by Law or at Night (Art. 158-2 Para. 1 of the CCP)|155
5|3.1.1.2 Right to Remain Silent and Access to a Defense Attorney (Art. 158-2 Para. 2 of the CCP)|156
4|3.1.2 Specific Exclusionary Rules of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act|156
4|3.1.3 General Exclusionary Rules of the CCP|157
3|3.2 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Undue Coercion|159
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture, Undue Coercion and Degrading Punishment|159
4|3.2.2 Definitions of Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination|159
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence (Possibly) Obtained by Torture and Undue Coercion|160
5|3.2.3.1 Legal Framework|160
5|3.2.3.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|160
5|Protecting Human Dignity of the Defendant and His Status as a Party|160
5|Safeguarding the Liberty of Decision Making and Mental Activities of the Defendant|161
5|Deterrence from Illegal Investigatory Activity Based on the Principle of the Due Process of Law|161
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture Undue Coercion|161
4|3.2.5 Exclusion of Evidence or Other Remedies Following a Breach of the Ban on Torture and Undue Coercion|162
4|3.2.6 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture and Undue Coercion|162
5|3.2.6.1 Legal Framework|162
5|3.2.6.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|163
4|3.2.7 Effect of International Human Rights|163
2|4 Statistics|164
2|5 Conclusion|165
2|Sec38|166
2|References|172
1|6 The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A Chinese Perspective|174
2|Abstract|174
2|1 Introduction|174
2|2 General Framework for Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|176
3|2.1 Legal Framework and Relevant Actors|177
4|2.1.1 General Rules|178
5|2.1.1.1 Law Determining a Duty to Search for the Truth|178
5|2.1.1.2 Law Securing a Fair Trial and/or Individual Rights|179
5|Constitutional Rules|179
5|Statutory Rules|179
5|International Human Rights Law|182
5|2.1.1.3 Law Balancing a Duty to Determine the Truth and Infringements on Individual Rights|185
4|2.1.2 Fact-Finding Procedure—Stages and Rules|187
4|2.1.3 Fact-Finding Procedure—Actors and Accountability|188
3|2.2 Social Relevance of the Truth and Individual Rights in Criminal Trials|190
4|2.2.1 Relevance of Determining the Truth|190
4|2.2.2 Presentation of “Fact-Finding” and/or “Truth” to the Public|192
5|2.2.2.1 Publicity of Fact-Finding Before a Judgment|192
5|2.2.2.2 Existence of Court TV|193
4|2.2.3 Public Discussion of Miscarriages of Justice|193
2|3 Limitations of Fact-Finding in Criminal Proceedings|195
3|3.1 General Rules of Evidence Taking (Admissibility of Evidence)|195
4|3.1.1 Legal Framework|195
5|3.1.1.1 Legal Framework for Evidence Taking/Admissibility of Evidence|195
5|Legal Framework and Its Context on the Books|195
5|The Development and Reforms of Chinese Rules on Evidence Exclusion|197
5|The Impact of Exclusionary Rules on the Actors Within Criminal Proceedings|197
5|The Justification of Exclusionary Rules in Paper Law|198
5|The Mandatory or Discretionary Feature of Exclusionary Rules|198
5|No Acknowledgment of the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine|198
5|The Significance of International Human Rights Law in the Chinese Context|199
5|3.1.1.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|199
5|On the Judicial Acceptance of a General “Exclusionary Rule”|199
5|On the Judicial Acceptance of the Duty to Find the Truth|199
5|The Justifications of Exclusionary Rules and Their Application in Specific Cases|200
5|3.1.1.3 Consequences of a Violation of Exclusionary Rules|200
4|3.1.2 Debate on Exclusionary Rules (in Civil Society, etc.)|201
5|3.1.2.1 The Public Debate on Exclusionary Rules|201
5|3.1.2.2 The Role of the International Monitoring Bodies’ Report on the Debate|204
4|3.1.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing Exclusionary Rules|205
3|3.2 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|205
4|3.2.1 Definitions of Torture and Degrading Punishment|205
4|3.2.2 Definitions of Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination|206
4|3.2.3 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence (Possibly) Obtained by Torture|207
5|3.2.3.1 Legal Framework|207
5|3.2.3.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|210
5|3.2.3.3 Exclusionary Rules in Public Debate|211
4|3.2.4 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Ban on Torture|211
4|3.2.5 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Torture|214
5|3.2.5.1 Legal Framework|214
5|3.2.5.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|214
4|3.2.6 Effect of International Law (Human Rights)|214
4|3.2.7 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|214
3|3.3 Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence—Cases of Undue Coercion|215
4|3.3.1 Right to Remain Silent/Privilege Against Self-incrimination and Undue Coercion|215
4|3.3.2 Exclusionary Rules for Illegally Gathered Evidence in Cases of Undue Coercion (Other Than Torture)|215
5|3.3.2.1 Legal Framework|215
5|3.3.2.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|216
4|3.3.3 Institutional Arrangements Securing the Right to Remain Silent|216
4|3.3.4 Admissibility of Indirect Evidence (“Fruits of Poisonous Tree”) in Cases of Undue Coercion|216
5|3.3.4.1 Legal Framework|216
5|3.3.4.2 Practice; (High Court) Jurisprudence|216
4|3.3.5 Remedies Following Violations of Exclusionary Rules|216
2|4 Statistics|217
2|5 Conclusion|219
2|Books|219
2|Journal Articles|220
2|Internet Links for UN-Documents|221
2|Case List|222
1|7 Criminal Justice and the Exclusion of Incriminating Statements in Singapore|223
2|Abstract|223
2|1 Introduction|223
2|2 Overview of Criminal Proceedings|225
3|2.1 Stages|225
4|2.1.1 Investigation, Decision to Prosecute, Procedural Preliminaries|225
4|2.1.2 Plea-Negotiation|226
4|2.1.3 Pre-trial|227
4|2.1.4 Trial|228
4|2.1.5 Post-trial|230
3|2.2 Actors: Duties and Accountability|231
4|2.2.1 Police Officers|231
4|2.2.2 Prosecutors|232
4|2.2.3 Defence Counsel|233
4|2.2.4 Judges|234
3|2.3 Constitutional Rights in the Criminal Process|235
4|2.3.1 Right to Counsel|235
4|2.3.2 Right not to Deprived of Life or Personal Liberty Save in Accordance with Law|236
2|3 Social Interest in Criminal Justice|237
3|3.1 Media Publicity and Public Comments|237
3|3.2 Public Interest in Miscarriages of Justice|238
2|4 Incriminating Statements by the Accused: Relevant Rules of Evidence and Procedure|239
3|4.1 Rules on the Obtaining of Evidence|240
3|4.2 The Privilege Against Self-incrimination and the Right of Silence|241
3|4.3 Rules on Admissibility of Evidence|243
2|5 Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|243
3|5.1 Definition of Torture|243
3|5.2 Prohibition Against Torture and the Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Torture|244
2|6 Exclusion of Statements Obtained from the Accused by Undue Pressure|245
3|6.1 Voluntariness as a Condition of Admissibility|245
3|6.2 Doctrine of Oppression|246
3|6.3 Burden of Proof|248
3|6.4 Discretion to Exclude Wrongfully Obtained Statements|249
2|7 Admissibility and Effect of Derivative Evidence|252
2|8 Effect of International Law on Human Rights|252
3|8.1 International/Human Rights Law|252
3|8.2 Universal Periodic Review|253
2|9 Safeguards|255
2|10 Statistics|256
3|10.1 Statistics on Police Dismissals, Internal Investigations and Actions Against Officers|257
3|10.2 Exclusion of Statements|258
3|10.3 Conviction and Acquittal Rates|258
2|11 Conclusion|259
2|12 Addendum|260
2|References|260
2|Books|260
2|Journal articles|260
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|261
1|Exclusionary Rules—Quo Vadis|263
1|8 The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview|264
2|Abstract|264
2|1 Introduction|264
2|2 Rationales of Exclusionary Rules|266
3|2.1 Finding the Truth|266
3|2.2 Upholding Judicial Integrity|267
3|2.3 Deterring Police Misconduct|268
3|2.4 Human Rights Considerations|270
2|3 Ideal Types of Exclusionary Systems|272
3|3.1 Ideal Type “System Integrity”|272
4|3.1.1 Balancing Interests|272
4|3.1.2 Type of Right Violated|273
4|3.1.3 Good Faith Exception|273
4|3.1.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|274
4|3.1.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|275
4|3.1.6 Summary|275
3|3.2 Ideal Type “Deterrence”|275
4|3.2.1 Balancing Interests|275
4|3.2.2 Type of Right Violated|276
4|3.2.3 Good Faith Exception|276
4|3.2.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|277
4|3.2.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|277
4|3.2.6 Summary|277
3|3.3 Ideal Type “Vindication of Individual Rights”|278
4|3.3.1 Balancing Interests|278
4|3.3.2 Type of Right Violated|278
4|3.3.3 Good Faith Exception|278
4|3.3.4 Exclusion of Derivative Evidence|278
4|3.3.5 Standing of Persons Other Than the Victim of the Violation|279
4|3.3.6 Summary|279
2|4 Choice of Rationale and Its Consequences|279
3|4.1 Legal Systems Based on the “System Integrity” Rationale|280
3|4.2 Legal Systems Based on the “Deterrence” Rationale|282
3|4.3 Legal Systems Based on the Human Rights Rationale|284
3|4.4 Mixed Systems|286
2|5 Conclusion: Aligning Doctrines with Rationales?|288
2|References|289
2|Books|289
2|Journal Articles|289
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|290
1|9 The Fair Trial Rationale for Excluding Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|292
2|Abstract|292
2|1 Introduction|292
2|2 European Convention on Human Rights|293
3|2.1 Introduction|293
3|2.2 Approach to exclusion under article 6(1) of the Convention|294
3|2.3 Possible Theoretical Bases|297
2|3 England|299
3|3.1 Common Law Approach to Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|299
3|3.2 Fair Trial Rationale and Its Limitations|302
3|3.3 Position Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE 1984’)|303
3|3.4 Reliability Interpretation of Fair Trial and Its Limitations|304
2|4 Singapore|306
3|4.1 Introduction|306
3|4.2 Admissibility of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence|306
3|4.3 Discretion to Exclude Admissible Evidence to Ensure a Fair Trial|308
3|4.4 Other Rationales|309
3|4.5 Evaluation|310
2|5 Conclusion|311
2|References|312
2|Books|312
2|Journal Articles|313
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|313
1|10 Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: Observation from Historical and Empirical Perspectives|315
2|Abstract|315
2|1 The Evolution of China’s Exclusionary Rules|316
3|1.1 Budding Stage: 1979–1996|316
3|1.2 Development Stage: 2010 to Date|319
3|1.3 Observations of the Development of Legislations|321
2|2 Empirical Analysis of China’s Exclusionary Rules: Are They Effectively Implemented in Practice?|322
3|2.1 Overall Trend: From “Extremely Cold” to “Modestly Warm”|324
3|2.2 Defendants Increasingly Apply for Exclusion of Illegal Evidence, and Chances of Success Are Low but Growing|326
3|2.3 Courts Excluded Much More Testimonial Evidence Than Tangible Evidence|327
3|2.4 Most Defendants Prefer Challenging Illegal Evidence Only at the Trial Stage|328
3|2.5 Few but Increasing Numbers of Exclusions of Illegal Evidence Impact Case Outcomes|328
2|3 What Causes the Gap Between Exclusionary Rules in the Books and in the Action?|330
3|3.1 Police Wrongdoings Are Not Routine in China|330
3|3.2 Discord Between Chinese Culture and Implanted Institutions|331
4|3.2.1 Trusting the Government Versus Guarding Against the Government|332
4|3.2.2 Substantive Truth Versus Procedural Fairness|332
4|3.2.3 Individual Rights Versus Public Interest|333
2|4 The Future of China’s Exclusionary Rules|334
3|4.1 Overall Assessment|334
3|4.2 Short-Term and Long-Term Projections|335
2|References|335
1|11 Securing a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules: Do Theory and Practice Form a Well-Balanced Whole?|337
2|Abstract|337
2|1 Theory and Practice|338
2|2 Data Collection and Analysis|338
3|2.1 Collection of Data|338
3|2.2 Data Analysis|340
2|3 Do Theory and Practice Form a Well-Balanced Whole?|341
3|3.1 Theoretical Considerations|341
3|3.2 Legal Rules in Practice|342
4|3.2.1 Function of Exclusionary Rules|342
4|3.2.2 Frequency of Exclusionary Rules in Practice|343
4|3.2.3 Kind of Exclusionary Rules in Practice|344
3|3.3 Difficulties and Limitations to Secure a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules|345
4|3.3.1 Difficulties in Applying the Law|345
4|3.3.2 Limitations of Safeguarding a Fair Trial|346
5|3.3.2.1 Subjective Assessments and Balancing Process|346
5|3.3.2.2 Credibility and Proof of Violations of Rules|347
5|3.3.2.3 Extend of Protection|348
5|3.3.2.4 Knowledge of the Excluded Evidence|348
5|3.3.2.5 Responsibilities and Control|349
3|3.4 Compliance with Rules to Obtain Evidence|349
4|3.4.1 Motivation of Norm Compliance and Awareness of Illegally Obtained Evidence|350
4|3.4.2 Protective Measure to Safeguard the Legal Obtainment of Evidence|351
5|3.4.2.1 Legal Consequences for Police Officers|351
5|3.4.2.2 Legal Consequences for the Affected Person|351
5|3.4.2.3 Control Measures: Physical Examinations, Recording of Interrogations, Participation of Lawyers|352
5|3.4.2.4 Practical Measures and Incentives|352
5|3.4.2.5 Training of Police Officers and Communication|353
2|4 Conclusion|353
2|References|354
2|Books|354
2|Journal articles|354
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|354
2|Interviews|355
1|12 Exclusionary Rules—Is It Time for Change?|356
2|Abstract|356
2|1 Exclusionary Rules—Efficient Tools or Illusory Giants (紙老虎)?|356
3|1.1 Standards for the Evaluation of Exclusionary Rules|357
3|1.2 Structural Inefficiency in Exclusionary Rules|359
4|1.2.1 Limited Scope: Are Only the Guilty Protected?|359
4|1.2.2 Between a Rock and a Hard Place|360
4|1.2.3 Empty Threats? Exclusionary Rules as Deterrents|362
3|1.3 To Replace or Enhance Exclusionary Rules?|363
2|2 Are Exclusionary Rules Inherently Disadvantaged?|363
3|2.1 Institutional Framework|363
3|2.2 Pitfalls Across Legal Systems|364
4|2.2.1 In Pursuit of the Truth|364
4|2.2.2 Record Keeping and the Role of the Prosecution|365
4|2.2.3 Checks and Balances: Supervision of Evidence Gathering|366
4|2.2.4 Procedural Protections for Defendants|366
4|2.2.5 Effective Remedies|367
3|2.3 Legislative Techniques to Promote Efficient Exclusionary Rules|367
4|2.3.1 Improving Statutory Structure|367
4|2.3.2 Exclusion of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree|368
3|2.4 Interim Conclusion|369
2|3 Alternatives to Exclusionary Rules|369
3|3.1 Decriminalization|370
3|3.2 Preventative Measures: Establishing Incentives and Reducing Barriers to Procedural Compliance|370
4|3.2.1 Improved Law Enforcement Training|371
4|3.2.2 Stress Management Programs|371
4|3.2.3 Incentive Systems|372
4|3.2.4 Elimination of Quotas|372
4|3.2.5 Monitoring Evidence Gathering|373
4|3.2.6 Injunctive Relief|373
4|3.2.7 Interim Conclusion|373
3|3.3 Other Means of Holding Law Enforcement Accountable|374
4|3.3.1 Claims Under Tort Law|374
4|3.3.2 Official Apologies|375
4|3.3.3 Criminal Prosecution|375
4|3.3.4 Other Sanctions|376
4|3.3.5 Interim Conclusion|376
3|3.4 Sentence Reductions|377
4|3.4.1 Advantages|378
4|3.4.2 Shortcomings|378
3|3.5 Amnesty and Pardons|380
3|3.6 Case Dismissals|380
3|3.7 Interim Conclusion|381
2|4 Conclusion|382
2|References|383
2|Books|383
2|Journal Articles|383
2|Contributions to Edited Volumes and Annotated Law|385