PETITION FOR REHEARING MAPP v. OHIO.

The article focuses on the petition for rehearing in the Mapp v. Ohio case, presenting the side of the prosecutor and a historical background if the exclusionary rule. The judgment calls for an extended argument on the decisions which have expounded the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in harmony with the essential reserved power of the States in enforcing their criminal laws. The opportunity to be heard is an essential requisite of due process of law in judicial proceedings. There was no argument advanced by the appellant in their brief or orally, promulgating the Weeks exclusionary rule in this State criminal case, Indeed, there was no argument by the appellant establishing that the Wolf doctrine was unsound, Nor did the Civil Liberties Union give any argument in their brief or in the fifteen minutes allotted to them on the oral hearing, establishing that a construction of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment rendered the Wolf decision unsound. Under all of the circumstances, it may be said that the appellee was misled into a limited argument and briefing upon the issue upon which the Court has reversed. Since the judgment raises a grave issue as to whether the States intended by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to give to Federal authority the power of prescribing what evidence is admissible or not admissible in trials for offenses against the States, we respectfully claim that a rehearing should be granted the appellee.