This paper uses the dichotomy between Herbert Packer’s (1968) two models of criminal justice advocacy – “crime control” and “due process” – as a rhetorical paradigm for understanding policy debate about the exclusion of relevant evidence at trial. Understanding the opposition between crime control and due process advocates as a rhetorical controversy, in which commonly-used ideographs camouflage dramatically different constructions of the concepts at stake, helps to illuminate the way each side mobilizes public support for their narrative of doing . While both the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally-obtained evidence in criminal cases) and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (which expands this rule) have been partially dismantled, they have not been abolished, and each remains a significant and productive locus of the debate over what values should inform the criminal justice process.

Cover Letter EKaylor.docx (12 kB)
Revisions Cover Letter