{"id":47040,"date":"2021-01-30T10:57:42","date_gmt":"2021-01-30T15:57:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=47040"},"modified":"2021-01-30T11:46:27","modified_gmt":"2021-01-30T16:46:27","slug":"ca1-defense-must-argue-cost-v-benefits-of-exclusionary-rule-or-its-likely-waived","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=47040","title":{"rendered":"CA1: Defense must argue cost v. benefits of exclusionary rule or issue is likely waived"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>When invoking the exclusionary rule, the defendant necessarily has to show that the deterrence value of exclusion outweighs the costs of exclusion. <a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca1.uscourts.gov\/pdf.opinions\/18-1569P-01A.pdf\">United States v. Cruz-Ramos<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2284 (1st Cir. Jan. 27, 2021), n. 9:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Joining belt with suspenders, we add that as the party invoking the exclusionary rule \u2014 a judicially crafted remedy, aimed at curbing police misconduct by (broadly speaking) barring prosecutors from introducing at the defendant&#8217;s trial evidence obtained through the misconduct \u2014 Cruz-Ramos must show not only causation, but also that the rule&#8217;s benefits (deterrence) outweigh its costs (e.g., excluding relevant evidence and perhaps letting a guilty person go free). See Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 140-41, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009); Hudson, 547 U.S. at 591. Yet his brief contains no such weighing analysis, creating a gaping hole that also sinks this aspect of his new-trial claim.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When invoking the exclusionary rule, the defendant necessarily has to show that the deterrence value of exclusion outweighs the costs of exclusion. United States v. Cruz-Ramos, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2284 (1st Cir. Jan. 27, 2021), n. 9:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104,11,96],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-pleading","category-good-faith-exception","category-standards-of-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=47040"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47040\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47047,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47040\/revisions\/47047"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=47040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=47040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=47040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}