Difference between revisions of "Fruit of the poisonous tree"
HeartOfGold (Talk | contribs) (Any lawyers might want to review this contribution) |
HeartOfGold (Talk | contribs) (More on the exclusionary rule) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''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 | + | '''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. | + | 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. |
| − | == | + | == Origins == |
| + | The exclusionary rule finds its origins in [[Weeks v. United States|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]], a case argued before the Supreme Court on December 2-3, 1913. 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|Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)]] | ||
| + | *[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]] | ||
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)] | *[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643 MAPP v. OHIO, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)] | ||
[[Category: Law]] | [[Category: Law]] | ||
Revision as of 13:55, May 22, 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.
Origins
The exclusionary rule 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. 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.
