What are the other terms for the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree?

Callaghan added the holding was "somewhat surprising" considering the fruit of the poisonous tree concept, but agreed with Craven that the defendant's voluntary statements were key to the ruling.

(25.) See Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, supra note 19 (providing that evidence obtained "from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the 'fruit') was tainted by the illegality (the 'poisonous tree')"); see also Sherry F.

'Having been obtained illegally, all the pieces of evidence seized at Hong Fei warehouse are inadmissible in evidence for being a 'fruit of the poisonous tree,'' the report read.

"The suppression that the lawyers are arguing are what we call the fruit of the poisonous tree," said law professor Gary Solis, who is covering the Guantanamo trials for the National Institute of Military Justice.

The Court upheld the admissibility of this fruit of the poisonous tree by a 3-2-4 vote.

This Note will examine whether waiver of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel require different standards when applying the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine or whether the precedent of Oregon v.

2001) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to Miranda violations).

as a result of the first leak?" If so, the ultimate confession was subject to suppression as the "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree." And so on.

Ever since the 100-year-old Counselman case was decided, the Court has viewed the privilege against self-incrimination as prohibiting indirect or derivative use, as well as direct use, of compelled utterances.(58) Thus, whether one views (i) a ban on the derivative use of coerced confessions as a corollary of the police methods rationale for excluding confessions; or (ii) the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine as applying to violations of the Fifth Amendment as well as the Fourth; or (iii) the Fifth Amendment exclusionary rule as containing its own "built-in" poisonous tree doctrine - a plausible way, I think, of reading Counselman and its progeny(59) - the result is the same.

Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial.

Evidence derived from illegal police actions is generally inadmissible—so is any evidence that's discovered as a result; that is, unless an exception exists.

You might know that evidence the cops find during an illegal search of you or your belongings is probably inadmissible in criminal court. You might also know that the prosecution typically can't use something you've said to the police if officers violated your rights in obtaining the statement (for example, by coercing it out of you).

Generally speaking, the prosecution can't use evidence that comes directly from police illegality—the seized object or the statement. But oftentimes, it also can't use evidence that derives from the illegality—something the officers discovered as a result of the object or statement. The latter is commonly referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree."

What Evidence Is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?

Fruit of the poisonous tree includes evidence gathered from just about any kind of police conduct that violates a defendant's constitutional rights. Take an illegal wiretap, for example. Suppose the police begin to listen in on and record the statements of suspected drug dealers without first getting a warrant. One of the dealers says that he left some cocaine in an abandoned warehouse so that his buyer could pick it up. The police go to the building and find the drugs. Not only is the illegally recorded statement (the poisonous tree) inadmissible, so too are the drugs the officers found (the fruit of that tree).

In a case that developed the concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree," Wong Sun v. United States, the prosecution introduced drugs into evidence against the defendant. Federal officers had learned about the drugs from a witness they knew about only because of a statement by the defendant during an illegal arrest. The Supreme Court ruled that everything the officers discovered as a result of the illegal arrest was fruit of the poisonous tree: not just the statement itself but also the witness information they gleaned from it and the actual drugs that the witness led them to. (371 U.S. 471 (1963).)

Exceptions to the Rule

There are exceptions to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, meaning that some evidence may be admissible even though police came by it illegally.

Inevitable Discovery

Courts use the terms "inevitable discovery" and "attenuated taint" to describe situations in which the government finds evidence illegally but could have found it lawfully. In those instances, the evidence may be admissible. (For another way to get illegally obtained evidence into court, see Is illegally seized evidence admissible to attack a defendant's credibility?)

Consider again the wiretapping example. Immediately after the officers go to the warehouse and snatch the drugs, the police hear from a reliable informant, who reports the cocaine and its location. The court finds that the informant's tip would have provided enough information for a lawfully issued warrant to search the warehouse. In many places, a court would probably admit the drugs into evidence because the officers could—and presumably would—have found them without the illegal wiretap.

Another example of the "attenuation doctrine" occurs where an officer doesn't have a legitimate reason to stop someone but discovers that the person stopped has an outstanding arrest warrant. If the officer arrests and searches the person, there's a good chance that any evidence the officer finds will be admissible in court. (For a detailed explanation of this kind of situation, see this article on the attenuation doctrine.)

Intervening Events: A Defendant's Statements

Another important exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree rule involves statements by defendants. If officers beat a statement out of a defendant, both the statement and evidence it leads to are inadmissible. But if the defendant gives a statement voluntarily, albeit without the requisite Miranda warning, evidence the police locate because of that statement can come in at trial. It doesn't matter that the statement itself is inadmissible—the poisoned fruit is nevertheless edible. (For more on Miranda and its exceptions, see When Police Violate the Miranda Rule and Exceptions to the Miranda Rule.)

Consult a Lawyer

Just like most legal concepts, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is complex, with nuances and exceptions. If you face criminal charges, consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. An experienced lawyer can protect your rights and zealously defend you.

What does the phrase the fruit of the poison tree represent?

When something is referred to as fruit of the poisonous tree it is quizlet?