{
  "abstract": "The use of unlawfully obtained evidence presents criminal justice systems with a problem that cannot be resolved solely by determining whether a procedural or constitutional violation occurred. A second question follows: what legal consequence should attach to the violation, particularly when the evidence appears reliable and relevant to the determination of guilt? Different legal systems answer this question through exclusionary rules, discretionary admissibility assessments, remedial balancing, and alternative forms of accountability. These approaches reflect competing concerns involving individual rights, evidentiary reliability, deterrence, institutional legitimacy, and the public interest in adjudicating criminal charges. This article develops a remedial framework that distinguishes four dimensions of unlawful evidence: the nature of the violation, its relationship to the acquisition of the evidence, its effect on the fairness and integrity of proceedings, and the capacity of the proposed remedy to address the underlying wrong. Drawing on United States Supreme Court jurisprudence and the Canadian constitutional framework, it argues that the reliability of evidence and the legality of its acquisition must be evaluated as distinct questions. It further proposes that remedial decisions should identify the protected interest, examine the causal relationship between the violation and the evidence, assess the institutional incentives created by admission or exclusion, and explain why the selected remedy is proportionate to the violation. The article does not advocate automatic exclusion in every case or unrestricted admission whenever evidence appears trustworthy. Instead, it offers a structured method for avoiding the two opposite errors of treating every illegality as requiring an identical consequence and treating reliable evidence as sufficient justification for disregarding procedural violations.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [
    "Stanford University"
  ],
  "article_type": null,
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 1,
  "authors": [
    {
      "affs": [
        0
      ],
      "name": "Sergio Pommier Gallo",
      "orcid": "0009-0000-7387-3943"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/9hj03vpxsfgv8.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.5281/zenodo.23568185",
  "fulltext_url": null,
  "id": "9hj03vpxsfgv8",
  "issns": [],
  "landing_url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23568185",
  "language": "eng",
  "licence": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [],
  "openalex": null,
  "pdf_url": "https://zenodo.org/api/records/23568185/files/Beyond%20Illegality%20and%20Admissibility_SergioPommierGalloPhD.pdf/content",
  "pmcid": null,
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-22",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/9hj03vpxsfgv8.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-11-05T12:20:32Z",
      "native_id": "23568185",
      "source": "zenodo",
      "url": "https://zenodo.org/records/23568185"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [],
  "title": "Beyond Illegality and Admissibility: A Remedial Framework for Evaluating Unlawfully Obtained Evidence in Criminal Proceedings",
  "title_text": "Beyond Illegality and Admissibility: A Remedial Framework for Evaluating Unlawfully Obtained Evidence in Criminal Proceedings",
  "type": "preprint",
  "updated_at": "2026-11-05T12:20:32Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/9hj03vpxsfgv8",
  "venue": "Zenodo",
  "versions": []
}