Are there any statistics on “smoking gun”-type evidence that was suppressed at trial? I know that it can’t really be considered a smoking gun by anyone other than the jury, but I think it is safe to say that a, for example, videotape showing the accused perpetrating the crime would fit the common sense definition of a smoking gun.
Thanks,
Rob
I remember reading, and this goes way back and is without a cite, that in 6% of all trials evidence is not shown to the jury based on the exclusionary rule. In half of those trials convictions were obtained despite the excluded evidence. In how many cases the excluded evidence qualified as a “smoking gun”, I have no idea.
You also have to factor in the cases where a prosecutor elects not to go to trial because he/she knows that evidence will be excluded. That number probably outweighs the trials with excluded evidence.