Legal Definitions - suppression of evidence

Suppression of evidence refers to a legal process where certain information or items that a party intends to use in a trial are prevented from being presented to the judge or jury. This can occur for two primary reasons:

• Lawful Exclusion: A judge rules that evidence cannot be used because it was obtained in a way that violated a person's constitutional rights or other specific legal rules. This typically happens before the trial begins, often at the request of the defense. The purpose is to uphold fundamental rights and ensure a fair legal process.
• Unlawful Withholding: A prosecutor improperly hides or fails to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defense. This is a violation of their legal obligation to ensure a fair trial and can lead to severe consequences for the prosecution's case.

Common grounds for a judge to lawfully exclude evidence include:

• Unlawful Search and Seizure: If evidence was collected by law enforcement through an illegal search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches), a judge can order that evidence to be suppressed.
• Violation of Miranda Rights: If a suspect's incriminating statements were obtained by police during questioning while in custody, without first informing them of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney (known as Miranda warnings, stemming from the Fifth Amendment), those statements can be suppressed.
• Violation of Right to Counsel: Evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have an attorney present during certain critical stages of a criminal proceeding can also be suppressed.

Here are some examples illustrating the suppression of evidence:

• Example 1: Illegal Search

  Imagine police officers pull over a driver for a broken taillight. Without any reasonable suspicion that the driver is involved in further criminal activity, they decide to search the trunk of the car. Inside, they discover a duffel bag containing illegal drugs. The driver's attorney would likely file a motion to suppress the drugs as evidence.

  How it illustrates the term: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the police searched the trunk without a warrant, probable cause, or a valid exception to the warrant requirement, the judge would likely rule that the evidence was obtained illegally. By granting the motion to suppress, the judge prevents the prosecution from using the drugs as evidence against the driver in court.

• Example 2: Miranda Rights Violation

  A person is arrested on suspicion of arson and taken to the police station. Detectives immediately begin questioning them about the fire for several hours without ever telling them they have the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney. During this interrogation, the person makes a detailed confession to setting the fire.

  How it illustrates the term: The defense attorney would move to suppress the confession. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and the Supreme Court's *Miranda* ruling requires law enforcement to inform suspects of these rights before custodial interrogation. Because the police failed to provide the Miranda warnings, the confession, though potentially true, was obtained in violation of the suspect's constitutional rights and would likely be excluded from trial.

• Example 3: Unlawful Withholding by Prosecution

  In a high-profile robbery trial, the prosecution's star witness identifies the defendant as the person they saw fleeing the bank. However, the police also have a separate security camera footage from a nearby store that shows a different individual, matching a different description, running away from the bank at the same time. The prosecutor is aware of this footage but does not disclose it to the defense team.

  How it illustrates the term: If the defense later discovers this withheld footage, they could argue that the prosecution engaged in unlawful suppression of evidence. Prosecutors have a constitutional duty (often referred to as the *Brady* rule) to disclose any evidence that is favorable to the defense, including evidence that might cast doubt on the prosecution's case or impeach a witness. Failure to disclose such material evidence undermines the fairness of the trial and could lead to a new trial or the exclusion of related prosecution evidence.