O’Connor expresses some doubt on rule that bans illegally obtained evidence

WASIBNGTON -Opponents of the rule that prevents the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials may have an ally in Supreme Court nominee Sandta O’Connor. Mrs. O’Connor, in the second day of hearings on her nomination, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has doubts about thl:! so-called exclusionary rule and also that she is personally in favor of the death penalty and opposed to court-ordered school busing. The exclusionary rule has been under fire from some quarters, including Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice William Rehnquist and the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime. Critics charge that application of the rule sometimes requires valuable evidence to be disregarded because of procedural technicalities. Defenders of the rule say it is essential to protect the rights of accused persons. Drawing on her experience as a trial judge for four years, Mrs. O’Connor said she had seen little problem with the requirement that police officers inform persons of their rights when they are arrested. I But, she said, “the exclusionary rule … has proven to be much more difficult in [ terms of the administration of justice. There are times when perfectly relevant evidence, and indeed sometimes the only evidence in I the case,” is excluded when it might be usable “if different standards were applied.” “I don’t want to be interpreted as suggesting that I think it ( the rule) is inappropriate when force or trickery or some other reprehensible conduct has