It appears that in the US the exclusionary rule is enforced stringently and seemingly without a great deal of judicial discretion allowed. Fair enough, if you are prepared to live with the consequences then nothing should change. In other common law jurisdictions there is a lot more leeway given to judges to make up their minds based on precedent and I would hope, common sense. But common law jurisdictions might learn from civil law in Europe as well. Roughly speaking all relevant evidence is admitted (this is in the French system) but it is given weight according to is proof value. For example, hearsay evidence is usually excluded in a common law jurisdiction (except where inclusionary rules such as dying declarations on cause of death may admit the evidence) but in France it's allowed in front of the jury but its proof value is pretty minimal. Anyway it's all very well referring to these issues in noble terms, (*)(*)(*)(*) sight harder when you're on the ground and trying to deal with the real issues - as Patrick T has pointed out in his reference to the bloody knife and clothing etc.
