Difference between revisions of "Fruit of the poisonous tree"

Revision as of 03:56, July 11, 2007

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal term in the United States that allows evidence that is obtained illegally (often unconstitutionally), as well as subsequent evidence legally obtained if said evidence was only made available via the illegally obtained evidence, to be ruled inadmissible in a court of law. It is also called the exclusionary rule. In the United States, defendents may make a motion to suppress such evidence, which means that the defendant is asking the trial judge to rule such evidence inadmissable during his or her trial.

For example, if a suspect has a confession beat out of him, and during the course of that confession, details to authorities to the location of a victim's body, and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body, neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings.

Exceptions

Evidence may not be suppressed under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine if:

1. It was discovered through an untainted and independant source.
2. It would have eventually been discovered through untainted sources.

Origins

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is related to the exclusionary rule, which finds its origins in Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914), a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913, and ultimately, the Bill of Rights. In Weeks v. United States, Justice William R. Day overturned Weeks's conviction because the evidence used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and ruled that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used against Weeks.

Criticisms

The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a crimminal go free "because the constable blundered." While other remedies are conceivable, such as holding both the constable and the suspect accountable for their own actions and violations, in the United States, the exclusionary rule remains judicial precedent.

See also

• Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914) Created Exclusionary rule at federal level
• MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Applied exclusionary rule to states
• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents