There's legal theory around this, and it's fairly well established, though often somewhat murky. The concept is "inevitable discovery". The defense attorney c

There's legal theory around this, and it's fairly well established, though often somewhat murky. The concept is "inevitable discovery". The defense attorney can bring up claims that the evidence was ill-gotten, and if the claim is upheld, then the judge can throw out everything gained afterward, unless they can prove that it would have been discovered unrelated to the ill-gotten loot. For example, if a police officer searches your home without a warrant and finds the murder weapon, that murder weapon ceases to exist, legally, and the suspect will likely get away scot free. However, if a different officer pulls him over for a DUI a week later, not as a result of information provided by the unlawful search, and finds blood in the back seat of the car, which leads to an arrest, prosecution could claim that they would have obtained a warrant to his home that would then have likely surfaced the murder weapon. Edit, all that was fairly random rambling, re-reading it in context, but what I meant to say was that I agree, and that his confession ought to be enough grounds to keep his termination permanent.