Abstract

Analysis of the U.S., Canadian and English approaches to excluding illegally obtained real evidence, which passes the threshold test of authenticity, probative value and relevance, reveals various ways in which poisoned truths are treated in criminal legal systems. A person who has no interaction with the criminal legal system may of course be considerably sympathetic to the English rule which attempts always to reveal the immediate truth. For if one considers only an individual criminal case, the English rule certainlyappears to value truth above all else. However, a contextual analysis makes it clear that there is a systemic effect in always revealing the truth that may result in fewer incidents of the truth being revealed in the future than if the immediate truth were suppressed in a particular case. The U.S. and Canadian exclusionary rules recognize the systemic harm of automatically revealing all truths the moment the truths become apparent. While the U.S. courts have had trouble agreeing on the rationale for excluding illegally obtained real evidence, they have come up with a rule which in the end balances the immediate harm of exclusion of the truth and the systemic harm of its inclusion. The U.S. rule is also very predictable, clearly setting out when a future truth is threatened by revealing an immediate truth. The Canadian rule is in the early stages of development, and, while there is a clearly stated rationale that seeks a justice of truth, it is not sufficiently concrete to allow one to predict when the rationale of a justice of truth will be achieved. In the final analysis, and in contrast to the English exclusionary rule, both the Canadian and U.S. rules address thesystemic harm of always including illegally obtained real evidence