Exclusionary rule scenario

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm interested in what one of the more legally knowledgeable posters has to say about this:

Let's imagine someone is investigated for a crime, and a piece of evidence pointing toward their guilt is discovered by the police but without a warrant, and therefore the evidence is inadmissible in court. Later evidence is discovered pointing toward another suspect, and thus that suspect ends up being charged with the crime.

Would the defense attorneys then be prohibited from bringing up the previous piece of evidence, which would point toward that suspect's innocence?

[Gamecock]

The ultimate decider would be a judge as to whether evidence can be used in a trial. Even though the evidence was illegally obtained for a different trial, it is unlikely that a judge would allow any sort of evidence illegally obtained to be used as admissible evidence in court. The only way illegally obtained evidence could be used in a trial (in your scenario) is if discovery of the evidence was 'inevitable,' or if their was some sort of independent source of information about the fruits of an illegal seizure.

Since you said there is no warrant, the 'good faith' exception is not relevant here.