Prosecutors need to present evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant broke the law to get a guilty verdict. Under the right of discovery, defendants and their attorneys can access and review the state’s evidence before the trial begins to prepare an effective response.
Defense attorneys can get specific evidence suppressed for various reasons. There are limited circumstances in which asking the court to exclude evidence from criminal proceedings could be an option. When is evidence suppression a viable component of a criminal defense strategy?
When police misconduct occurred
Unlawful searches, Miranda warning violations and other police officer misconduct can compromise the validity of critical evidence. Under the exclusionary rule, they can ask the court to exclude evidence acquired through illegal behavior or a violation of a defendant’s rights.
When there are issues with the evidence
In some cases, a preliminary review of the prosecution’s evidence can reveal significant issues. Perhaps there is a gap in the chain of custody, for example. This can raise questions about tampering or contamination.
Maybe it is clear or at least possible that lab technicians did not follow standard procedures when handling and testing forensic evidence. In cases where there are questions about the quality of the evidence or adherence to scientific standards during the collection, testing or storage of evidence, it may be possible to ask the courts to exclude evidence of questionable quality from criminal proceedings.
Defendants feeling concerned about a criminal charge are wise to have experienced legal guidance to review the state’s evidence as they evaluate different criminal defense strategies. Suppressing evidence can increase the chances of a successful defense or even lead to the dismissal of charges in some cases.