Impeachment
As we have discussed in previous sessions, the rationale for the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct in searches and seizures – so, such illegally seized evidence cannot be admitted to prove the State’s case. However, the rule is not meant to be a license to commit perjury. Therefore, if a defendant testifies, that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used to impeach the defendant’s testimony.
Example of Impeachment
Here is an example. Suppose the police conduct an illegal search and discovery a bloody knife in the defendant’s possession. One containing the blood of the victim and the defendant’s fingerprints. The prosecutor could not admit evidence of that knife in the state’s case. However, if the defendant testifies in his own defense before the jury and says he has never possessed a knife, the prosecutor could offer that evidence to demonstrate the defendant is testifying falsely.
Other Situations
In addition to impeachment, the exclusionary rule does not apply to the presentation of evidence to a grandy jury or even a sentencing proceeding after conviction. Both of those functions are fact finding endeavors separate from the presentation of evidence to convict, so the courts have not applied the exclusionary rule to these situations.
Legal Supplement
U.S. v. Havens, 446 U.S. 624 (1980),
[T]he use of evidence obtained in an illegal search and inadmissible in the Government’s cas in chief [may be] admitted to impeach the direct testimony of the defendant.
[P]ermitted impeachment by otherwise inadmissible evidence is not limited to collateral matters.
U.S. v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978),
[W]e have refused to require that illegally seized evidence be excluced from presentation to the grand jury.
U.S. v. Ryan, 236 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2001),
[A]ll nine other circuits to have considered this issue have determined that, in most circumstances, the exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction of the fruits of illegal searches and seizures during sentencing proceedings.
U.S. v. Moria-Trinadad, 100 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996),
[W]hile defendants are free to testify truthfully on their own behalf without opening the door to impeachment an affirmative resort to perjurious testimony may be exposed by impeachment with illegally obtained evidence.
U.S. v. Graves, 785 F.2d 870 (10th Cir. 1986),
In the opinion of this court, extension of the exclusionary rule to sentencing or post-sentencing proceedings before federal agencies would, in the ordinary case, have a deterrent so minimal as to be insignificant.
