NEW YORK – Every first year law student learns the Exclusionary Rule. The century-old constitutional doctrine forbids the use of evidence obtained by police as the result of an improper search.

Chief Justice John Roberts is following in the footsteps of his mentor.

The rule was bolstered in the 1960s, during the Warren Court, with Chief Justice Earl Warren and his brethren working mightily to clarify this important Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials.

Not so the more recent Rehnquist Court, which has been no friend to the Exclusionary Rule. During his many years as chief justice, William Rehnquist and his fellow justices carved out exceptions that began to swallow the rule: Evidence obtained through “good faith” reliance on a bad warrant; evidence seized under “exigent circumstances”; even evidence that would have been discovered anyway (the so-called inevitable discovery doctrine).

Now Chief Justice John Roberts, who follows in the footsteps of his mentor, has signaled his desire to further limit the rule. In 2006, the Roberts Court allowed for evidence found by police officers after they stormed a Detroit apartment without knocking. (Knocking was previously a requirement).

That opinion, Hudson v. Michigan, can be read as a call for additional challenges to the Exclusionary Rule. And, just this week, the Court accepted a new case that will give it yet another opportunity to roll back the rule: Herring v. US, in which the Court will decide whether the list of exceptions should be expanded to include evidence obtained from a search by officers relying on a careless record–keeping error.

The officers in Herring arrested a man after being informed that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. But the warrant had expired. Despite this, Herring was tried and convicted.

Most often the Supreme Court takes a case like Herring’s to reverse the underlying conviction; indeed, Herring’s appeal, brought by students at my alma mater, Stanford Law School, is an effort to secure just that – a reversal of fortune for Herring.

I’m betting, however, that the Court is going to side with police on this one.

In rolling back the Exclusionary Rule, the Supreme Court has, time and again, cited the “heavy toll” the suppression of reliable evidence takes on the criminal justice system. Perhaps suppression of evidence for violation of basic constitutional rights does place a burden on the system.

But it is precisely the burden of justice our Founders intended. The Constitution is not about the efficiency; it is about our fundamental freedoms.

– Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

NEW YORK – I found myself bewildered by the Roger Clemens Congressional hearing on Wednesday, a proceeding which clearly devolved into some form of absurd theater rather than a valid legislative inquiry.

Roger Clemens told his story to a skeptical Congress.

And then I found myself equally bewildered by the reactions afterward of many observers. Although I expected there would be a distinct division between those who believe Clemens and those who don’t, I didn’t expect so many observers (some who should certainly know better) to be so quick to turn the Clemens drama into a racial issue.

They did so by concluding that a failure to subject Clemens to the same perjury prosecution facing Barry Bonds would be evidence of racial bias by the Justice Department.

The argument seems to be: If you’re going to prosecute the black baseball star you should also prosecute the white baseball star.

First of all, let’s not be so quick to indict the Justice Department until there has been a sufficient opportunity to conduct an investigation and determine if a prosecution is appropriate. Perhaps the answer to that question will be “yes” and Roger Clemens’ name will be penciled in, not to a line-up card, but to a criminal docket.

But if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, there are some very valid distinctions between Clemens and Bonds (and other high profile perjury defendants such as Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby) that could explain the decision.

For instance, the lying alleged in Bond’s case–as with Stewart and Libby–came during the course of an active criminal investigation. Clemens’ statements were offered during a voluntary informational session, apparently requested by Clemens, which the chairman of the Committee now agrees should not have taken place.

Given this situation, the Justice Department might conclude that there was no compelling justification to devote the resources to what many would argue is simply a purely personal matter between Clemens and former trainer Brian McNamee.

Additionally, prosecutors believe there is sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the charges against Bonds, as juries also found in convicting both Stewart and Libby. But we don’t yet know if prosecutors will conclude that there is sufficient valid evidence against Clemens, in addition to the testimony of his accuser, that would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And finally, any claim that a decision not to prosecute would somehow be based on race ignores the fairly obvious fact that prosecutors were not the least bit reluctant to go after Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, both of whom were rich, powerful and white. Maybe Roger Clemens will be prosecuted, maybe he won’t. The point is, if the Justice Department decides not to prosecute, don’t be so quick to jump on the “It’s all about race” or “It’s all about rich white Republicans” bandwagon. Perhaps it’s just all about the law.

– Jack Ford, In Session anchor

NEW YORK — Should Congress cut a deal with the attorney general concerning crack sentences, or will Michael Mukasey’s plea go up in smoke?

A homeless man smokes crack in Los Angeles.

Mukasey went before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday and asked lawmakers to act before March 3, when new U.S. Sentencing Commission rules take effect. The new rules would allow inmates to seek reductions in their sentences.

Almost 20,000 inmates could be eligible for shorter terms under the proposed changes. About 1,600 federal inmates could be eligible for immediate release.

The controversy erupted back in 1986 when sentencing guidelines were enacted to stem the crack epidemic ravaging many urban communities. The law gave first-time offenders convicted of selling five grams of crack cocaine the same five-year mandatory prison sentence as dealers of 500 grams of powder cocaine — a 100-to-1 ratio. In 2006, 82 percent of those sentenced under federal crack cocaine laws were black, and only about 8 percent were white.

These numbers enraged civil rights advocates. The Supreme Court weighed in and ruled in December that federal judges can impose lighter prison sentences than federal guidelines specify.

Mukasey says releasing these folks would be devastating. According to the Justice Department, two-thirds of federal inmates serving time for crack cocaine also have violent criminal histories. Mukasey indicates a willingness to go along with new guidelines that reduce prison time for crack convicts — but only for first-time, nonviolent offenders.

After decades of questionable prison terms, convincing Congress to act will be quite a challenge as many lawmakers are supporting measures to reduce these sentencing disparities even further.

– Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

WASHINGTON – You wouldn’t think fireball pitcher Roger Clemens and the 19th Century playwright Oscar Wilde would have anything in common, but a lawsuit could be a link between them.

Clemens has been accused of using steroids by his former trainer, Brian McNamee. Clemens has denied it, implying that McNamee is a liar. Last week McNamee hired a high-powered lawyer, who said if Clemens continues to say McNamee’s charges are untrue, McNamee will sue Clement for defamation, thus forcing him to make his charges under oath and risk prosecution for perjury.

When Oscar Wilde was in a similar situation he (very unwisely, it turned out) precipitated a libel case which boomeranged and led to his imprisonment.

Wilde had been called a “sodomite” by the father of a young man who lived with Wilde. Wilde charged the man with criminal libel, but in the trial that resulted, it became clear that Wilde was guilty of the charge made by the father, and far more. Wilde was convicted of “gross indecency,” and spent two years behind bars.

Thus far, Roger Clemens’ denials have not triggered a suit by McNamee, but Clemens has scheduled an interview with Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes” on Sunday night.

McNamee’s lawyer, Richard Emery, said if Clemens “continues to play fast and loose with the truth on ’60 Minutes,’ and he continues to call Brian McNamee a liar,” then they will sue The Rocket and force him to make his denials about steroid use under oath.

Clemens may not be familiar with Wilde’s comeuppance, but in any event, precipitating a defamation suit is a hazardous undertaking, and this situation may not come to that. But if there is a lawsuit, reserve a seat for me in the front row.

– Fred Graham, In Session Senior Editor

Welcome to the first day of In Session and our new blog, Sidebar.

At Sidebar, our distinguished anchors and correspondents will bring you the latest breaking trial news, along with expert legal analysis. We’ll tell you what’s coming up on the docket. Our correspondents and anchors take you behind the scenes. We’ll give you our observations, insights, comments and opinions on what is happening in and around America’s courtrooms. We are excited about our new home at CNN.com and look forward to your suggestions and ideas as we continue to develop this new venture

– Marlene Dann
Executive Vice President
In Session