Effects of Excluding Illegally Seized Evidence
Much has been written about the need for more testing of the empirical effects of alternative legal policies.1 Much has also been written about the desirability of adopting or not adopting the rule excluding illegally seized evidence from courtroom proceedings.2 This chapter has two purposes. One is to illustrate some of the methodological problems involved in systematically testing legal effects. The other is to indicate the substantive findings of a study on the effects of the exclusionary rule.
The main data for this study were compiled through the use of questionnaires.3 In November 1963, 250 questionnaires were mailed to a police chief, a prosecuting attorney, a judge, a defense attorney, and
The writer thanks Albert Wicks for his participation in an early phase of this study, and Robert Phares for compiling the data for Table 23-3. Both are former political science students at the University of Illinois.