CA1: Defense must argue cost v. benefits of exclusionary rule or issue is likely waived

When invoking the exclusionary rule, the defendant necessarily has to show that the deterrence value of exclusion outweighs the costs of exclusion. United States v. Cruz-Ramos, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2284 (1st Cir. Jan. 27, 2021), n. 9:

Joining belt with suspenders, we add that as the party invoking the exclusionary rule — a judicially crafted remedy, aimed at curbing police misconduct by (broadly speaking) barring prosecutors from introducing at the defendant’s trial evidence obtained through the misconduct — Cruz-Ramos must show not only causation, but also that the rule’s benefits (deterrence) outweigh its costs (e.g., excluding relevant evidence and perhaps letting a guilty person go free). See Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 140-41, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009); Hudson, 547 U.S. at 591. Yet his brief contains no such weighing analysis, creating a gaping hole that also sinks this aspect of his new-trial claim.