[Cboldt]

-- every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice --

The "therefore acquitted" doesn't follow every successful motion to suppress. That outcome depends on the contents of the motion to suppress, and what the appellate judge had for breakfast. Most successful motions to suppress do NOT result in acquittal at trial or reversal of a guilty verdict on appeal.

[Beagle8U]

I think the court erred in this case, either that or the state’s attorney was a total dumba$$ and didn’t present his case very well.

[nathanbedford]

… every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice (emphasis supplied to my own words)

You are quite correct, a successful motion to suppress does not automatically result in a dismissal or acquittal which is exactly why I did not write "… every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is [therefore] acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice" but inserted the word "therefore" as is emphasized above indicating that the reason for the acquittal, the "therefore," was because the only incriminating evidence was the wrongly seized evidence, it was the reason there for.

I did not intend to say that all successful motions to suppress result in automatic acquittal that would imply a sentence such as, "… whenever a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice…"

Sorry for the confusion.