About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

63 U. Colo. L. Rev. 75 (1992)
Deterrence, Perjury, and the Heater Factor: An Exclusionary Rule in the Chicago Criminal Courts

handle is hein.journals/ucollr63 and id is 91 raw text is: DETERRENCE, PERJURY, AND THE HEATER FACTOR: AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN THE CHICAGO CRIMINAL COURTS MYRON W. ORFIELD, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION A. Ideology and the Exclusionary Rule From its inception, the exclusionary rule has spurred intense and often rancorous debate between liberals and conservatives.' Both sides put forward principled legal arguments intertwined with assertions concerning the practical operation and effects of the rule. These asser- tions, however, are almost entirely speculative; driven by ideological commitments rather than by observation. A striking feature of the decades-long debate is that there is still very little empirically- grounded information on the rule's application and effects. In the last twenty years, the Supreme Court has grown hostile toward the exclusionary rule. The Rehnquist Court appears deter- mined to limit the scope of the rule, perhaps even eliminate it entirely. This study based on data compiled from structured interviews with judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in the Chicago criminal court system - and a systematic examination of court documents - demonstrates that the Court's actions are rooted in a series of assump- * Representative, Minnesota House of Representatives and Special Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota (on leave of absence). J.D., University of Chicago, B.A., University of Minnesota. I would like to thank Stephen J. Schulhofer for making the decision to support this project and for his unflagging assistance and insightful comments throughout the drafting of the questionnaire, the inter. views, and the writing process. The entire project was strengthened immeasurably from his input. I would also like to express special thanks to my friend, Albert Alschuler for interesting me in the crimi- nal law as a student and supporting and guiding all of my scholarly efforts. This article also benefitted greatly from the comments of Thomas Y. Davies, Yale Kamisar, Hans Ziesel, and Richard Frase. During the research and much of the writing of this article I was a Research Associate at the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago Law School. I was later awarded a Bradley Fellowship from the Center to complete the project and received additional support from the Friends of Tony Patino Fellowship. Invaluable typing and clerical support was provided by the law firm of Faegre & Benson in Minneapolis. I am enormously grateful to the State's Attorney, the Public Defender and the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Without their endless help and patience, this project would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the individual prosecutors, public defenders, and judges who agreed to be interviewed. Their patience, insight, and candor was deeply appreciated. 1. See generally Herbert L. Packer, Two Models of the Criminal Process, 113 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (1964) (discussing how crime control conflicts with the interests of due process).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most