Academic Says USSC misused research in exclusionary rule decision

[Frank Cross]

It's not about agreeing with the legal conclusion, that's a total red 
herring (to which the editorial contributed).
It's about selectively choosing facts in a way that misrepresents the 
overall findings of the
author being cited.


At 12:17 PM 6/26/2006, Nelson Lund wrote:
>If the rule is that courts can cite sources for factual propositions only 
>when the author of the cited source would agree with the court's legal 
>conclusion, I doubt that any judge in history will be found to have 
>consistently complied with the rule.
>
>I also doubt that there are any academics who have scrupulously followed 
>such a citation rule.
>
>Nelson Lund
>
>
>Frank Cross wrote:
>
>>Well, Scalia was using the source as factual evidence for a decision.
>>He selectively used the factual evidence that supported his conclusion 
>>(increased professionalization) but ignored the factual evidence that 
>>undermined his conclusion (that it was the result of principles like the 
>>exclusionary rule).  This would seem to be a classic case of looking out 
>>over the crowd and identifying only your friends.
>>It would be as if a precedent contained two factors, one which supported 
>>an outcome and another which did not, and a justice mentioned only the 
>>favored one.
>>
>>At 10:46 AM 6/26/2006, Nelson Lund wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see any evidence in Walker's op-ed to support the proposition 
>>>that Scalia "twisted" Walker's argument or engaged in the "misuse of 
>>>evidence." Apparently, Scalia cited Walker for a factual proposition 
>>>that Walker does not disavow but rather reaffirms. Scalia apparently 
>>>never claimed that Walker would agree with anything else that Scalia 
>>>said, or with the outcome of the case. So who is "twisting" whose 
>>>arguments, and "misusing evidence"?
>>>
>>>Nelson Lund
>>>George Mason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Frank Cross wrote:
>>>
>>>>But at least he was cited
>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-walker25jun25,0,2945743.story
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>>
>>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>**********************************************************
>>Frank Cross
>>McCombs School of Business
>>The University of Texas at Austin
>>1 University Station B6000
>>Austin, TX 78712-1178
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178