[smart_creature]

You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence.

[mannerheim]

If the exclusion of a single piece of evidence whose use in a trial was unconstitutional meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict, I would say there wasn't 'overwhelming evidence'.