Works matching Exclusionary rule (Evidence)
1
- Journal of Eastern European Criminal Law, 2015, n. 2, p. 13
- Article
2
- Crime, Law & Social Change, 2011, v. 55, n. 2/3, p. 199, doi. 10.1007/s10611-011-9279-4
- Article
3
- American Journal of Law & Medicine, 1994, v. 20, n. 4, p. 514
- Article
4
- Nevada Law Journal, 2014, v. 15, n. 1, p. 42
- Article
5
- American Bar Association Journal, 1981, v. 67, n. 12, p. 1642
- Article
6
- Missouri Law Review, 2022, v. 87, n. 4, p. 1
- Article
7
- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2016, v. 105, n. 4, p. 993
- Article
8
- Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1964, v. 55, n. 3, p. 307, doi. 10.2307/1141211
- Article
9
- Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1961, v. 52, n. 3, p. 255, doi. 10.2307/1141102
- Article
10
- Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 1961, v. 52, n. 3, p. 245
- Article
11
- Episteme (Edinburgh University Press), 2008, v. 5, n. 3, p. 295, doi. 10.3366/E1742360008000403
- Article
12
- Journal of Private International Law, 2015, v. 11, n. 1, p. 163, doi. 10.1080/17441048.2015.1039778
- Article
13
- Mercer Law Review, 2011, v. 63, n. 1, p. 119
- Hogue, Franklin J.;
- Hogue, Laura D.
- Article
14
- Minnesota Law Review, 2016, v. 100, n. 5, p. 1885
- Article
15
- Minnesota Law Review, 2014, v. 99, n. 1, p. 313
- Article
16
- SMU Law Review, 2014, v. 67, n. 4, p. 821
- Article
17
- Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2012, v. 9, n. 1, p. 149, doi. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01250.x
- Article
18
- Temple Law Review, 2015, v. 87, n. 3, p. 611
- Article
19
- Texas Law Review, 2014, v. 92, n. 5, p. 1241
- Article
20
- Texas Law Review, 1996, v. 75, n. 1, p. 51
- Article
21
- University of Miami Law Review, 2015, v. 69, n. 2, p. 429
- Article
22
- Journal of Criminal Law, 2015, v. 79, n. 4, p. 238, doi. 10.1177/0022018315597851a
- Article
23
- Journal of East Asia & International Law, 2021, v. 14, n. 2, p. 319, doi. 10.14330/jeail.2021.14.2.05
- Article
24
- Rutgers Law Journal, 2013, v. 43, n. 4, p. 919
- Article
25
- Rutgers Law Journal, 2013, v. 43, n. 4, p. 747
- Article
26
- Georgia Law Review, 2017, v. 51, n. 4, p. 1209
- Rushin, Stephen;
- Garnett, Allison
- Article
28
- Stanford Law Review, 2008, v. 60, n. 6, p. 2131
- Article
29
- American Journal of Criminal Law, 2002, v. 30, n. 1, p. 107
- Article
30
- Vanderbilt Law Review, 2012, v. 65, n. 5, p. 1137
- Article
33
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007, v. 2007, n. 2, p. 451
- Article
34
- University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2022, v. 55, n. 4, p. 959, doi. 10.36646/mjlr.55.4.deprogramming
- Article
35
- St. Mary's Law Journal, 2017, v. 48, n. 3, p. 583
- Article
36
- Loyola Law Review, 2011, v. 57, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
37
- Hofstra Law Review, 2020, v. 48, n. 3, p. 761
- Article
38
- Hofstra Law Review, 2017, v. 46, n. 2, p. 641
- Article
39
- International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2015, v. 19, n. 4, p. 270, doi. 10.1177/1365712715601764
- Article
40
- International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2015, v. 19, n. 1, p. 67, doi. 10.1177/1365712714566374
- Article
41
- Law & Contemporary Problems, 2010, v. 73, n. 3, p. 211
- Article
42
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2019, v. 27, n. 3, p. 689
- Article
43
- Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 2017, v. 27, n. 2, p. 147, doi. 10.18060/7909.0049
- Article
44
- Military Law Review, 2012, v. 211, p. 211
- Article
45
- Public Land & Resources Law Review, 2017, v. 38, n. 1, p. 57
- Article
46
- Journal of Appalachian Studies, 2016, v. 22, n. 2, p. 245, doi. 10.5406/jappastud.22.2.0245
- Article
47
- American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2001, v. 26, n. 1, p. 43, doi. 10.1007/BF02886856
- Article
48
- American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1988, v. 12, n. 2, p. 147, doi. 10.1007/BF02888933
- Article
49
- Defense Counsel Journal, 2008, v. 75, n. 1, p. 26
- Sobus, Mark S.;
- Jacks, Dan
- Article
50
- Defense Counsel Journal, 2003, v. 70, n. 2, p. 540
- Article