CrimP 6 - Exclus Rule Flashcards
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is EXCLUDED at trial.
The exclusionary rule is a judge-made doctrine that prohibits intro- duction of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.
Under the rule, unconstitution- ally obtained evidence is inadmissible at trial.
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Evidence obtained from exploitation of unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
All “fruit of the poisonous tree” (that is, evidence obtained from exploitation of the unconstitutionally obtained evidence) must also be excluded unless the costs of excluding the evidence outweigh the deterrent effect exclusion would have on police misconduct.
Exceptions:
Exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine:
Exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine: M I A D I K = MIA KID = KIAs are MID
• The fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda
• Evidence obtained from a source independent of the original illegality
• Attenuation: Casual link btwn police misconduct and evidence is broken.
Evidence for which the connection between the unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote (considering whether the misconduct was purposeful or flagrant) or has been inter- rupted by some intervening circumstance, so that the causal link between the police misconduct and the evidence is broken (“attenuation”- for example, defendant is illegally arrested but is released and later returns to the station to confess; police officers technically make an unlawful stop, but there is an arrest warrant out for the detainee)
• • Defendant’s intervening act of free will. Includes intervening acts of free will on the part of the defendant.
• Inevitable discovery—that is, the prosecution can show that the police would have discovered the evidence whether or not the police acted unconstitutionally
• Violations of the knock and announce rule.
The THREE I’s of breaking the chain
Three Ins that make Evidence ADMISSABLE:
1. Indpeendnet Source
2. Interveing act of free will
3. Inevitable discovery
Live Witness Testimony
It is difficult to have live witness testimony excluded on exclusionary rule grounds..
In-Court Identification
A defendant may not exclude a witness’s in-court identification on the ground that it is the fruit of an unlawful detention.
Out-of-Court Identifications
Unduly suggestive out-of-court identifications that create a substantial likelihood of misidentification can violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Whether an identification procedure is unduly suggestive is judged on a case-by-case basis under the totality of the circumstances.
However, the Court will not consider applying the exclusionary rule unless the unnecessarily suggestive circumstances were arranged by the police.
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Inapplicable to
Inapplicable to GRAND JURIES, Civil Proceedings, Violations of State Law, Internal Agency Rules, and Parole Revocation Proceedings
The exclusionary rule is inapplicable to grand juries unless evidence was obtained in violation of the federal wiretapping statute.
The rule is also inapplicable at parole revocation proceedings, in civil proceedings, or where evidence was obtained contrary only to state law or agency rules.
LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Good Faith Reliance on Law, Defective Search Warrant, or Clerical Error
The exclusionary rule does not apply when the police arrest someone ERRONEOUSLY BUT IN GOOD FAITH thinking that they are acting pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, search warrant, or law.
There are four exceptions to a good faith reliance on a defective warrant:
(1) The affidavit underlying that warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable police officer would have relied on it.
(2) The affidavit underlying the warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
(3) The police officer or prosecutor lied to or misled the magistrate when seeking the warrant.
(4) The magistrate is biased and therefore has wholly abandoned their neutrality.
four exceptions to a good faith reliance on a defective warrant: ***
four exceptions to a good faith reliance on a defective warrant:
(1) The affidavit underlying that warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable police officer would have relied on it.
(2) The affidavit underlying the warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
(3) The police officer or prosecutor lied to or misled the magistrate when seeking the warrant.
(4) The magistrate is biased and therefore has wholly abandoned their neutrality.
Use of Excluded Evidence for Impeachment Purposes ***
Some illegally obtained evidence may still be used to impeach the defendant’s credibility if they take the stand at trial.
Specifically, an otherwise voluntary confession taken in violation of the Miranda requirements is admissible for IMPEACHMENT purposes, and evidence obtained from an illegal search may be used by the prosecution to IMPEACH the DEFENDANT’s, but not others’, statements.
HARMLESS ERROR TEST
If illegal evidence is admitted, a resulting conviction should be overturned on appeal UNLESS the government can show beyond reasonable doubt that THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.
The conviction will be upheld if it would have resulted despite the improper evidence.
In a habeas proceeding where the petitioner claims constitutional error, the petitioner should be released if they can show that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict; if the judge is in grave doubt as to the harm, the petition must be granted.
Harmless error - right to counsel
he harmless error standard never applies to the denial of the right to counsel at trial; this error is never harmless.
Exam: Will D’s incriminating statements be admissible at his criminal trial?
ADMISSABLE TO IMPEACH.
NOT ADMISSABLE IN CASE IN CHIEF.
ENFORCING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
A defendant is entitled to have the admissibility of evidence or a confession decided as a matter of law by a judge out of the hearing of the jury. The government bears the burden of establishing the admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant has the right to testify at a suppression hearing without their testimony being admitted against them at trial on the issue of guilt.
