EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Question 1

IN GENERAL—SCOPE OF RULE

Answer 1

• Exclusionary rule prohibits introduction of evidence obtained in violation of D’s 4th, 5th, & 6th am rights.
• Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is inadmissible at trial, & all “fruit of poisonous tree” (evidence
  obtained from exploitation of unconstitutionally obtained evidence) must also be excluded unless costs of excluding evidence outweigh deterrent effect exclusion would have on police misconduct.
• Exceptions to fruit of poisonous tree doctrine:
  (1) Fruits derived from statements obtained in violation of Miranda
  (2) Evidence obtained from source independent of original illegality
  (3) Evidence for which connection between unconstitutional police conduct & evidence is remote
  (considering whether misconduct was purposeful/ flagrant) or has been interrupted by some intervening
  circumstance, so that causal link between police
  misconduct & evidence is broken (“attenuation”—
  for ex, D is illegally arrested but is released & later returns to station to confess; police officers technically make an unlawful stop, but there is an arrest warrant out for detainee)
  (4) This includes intervening acts of free will by D
  (5) Inevitable discovery: prosecution can show police would have discovered evidence whether/ not police acted unconstitutionally
  (6) Violations of knock & announce rule

Question 2

Live Witness Testimony

Answer 2

• Difficult to have live witness testimony excluded based on exclusionary rule

Question 3

In-Court Identification

Answer 3

• D may not exclude a witness’s in-ct ID on the ground that it is the fruit of an unlawful detention

Question 4

Out-of-Court Identifications

Answer 4

• Unduly suggestive out-of-ct IDs that create substantial likelihood of misID can violate DPCof 14th am.
• Whether an ID procedure is unduly suggestive is judged on a case-by-case basis by TOC
• However, Ct will not consider applying exclusionary
  rule unless unnecessarily suggestive circumstances
  was caused by police.

Question 5

LIMITATIONS ON THE RULE: Inapplicable to Grand Juries, Civil Proceedings, Violations of State Law, Internal Agency Rules, & Parole Revocation Proceedings

Answer 5

• Inapplicable to grand juries unless evidence was obtained in violation of fed wiretapping statute.
• Inapplicable at parole revocation proceedings, in civil proceedings, or where evidence was obtained contrary only to state law/agency rules.

Question 6

Good Faith Reliance on Law, Defective Search Warrant, or Clerical Error

Answer 6

• Does not apply when police arrest someone in error but in good faith thinking they are acting pursuant to valid warrant/law.
• 4 exceptions to good faith reliance on defective warrant:
  (1) Affidavit underlying warrant is so lacking in PC that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
  (2) Affidavit underlying warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable officer would have relied on it.
  (3) Officer/prosecutor lied to/misled magistrate when seeking warrant.
  (4) Magistrate is biased (not neutral/detached)

Question 7

Use of Excluded Evidence for Impeachment Purposes

Answer 7

• Some illegally obtained evidence may still be used to
  impeach D’s credibility if they take the stand at trial.
• Specifically, an otherwise voluntary confession taken
  in violation of Miranda is admissible to impeach, & evidence obtained from illegal search may be used to impeach D’s, but not others’, statements.

Question 8

Knock and Announce Rule Violations

Answer 8

• Exclusion is not an available remedy for violations of knock & announce rule pertaining to execution of warrant.

Question 9

HARMLESS ERROR TEST

Answer 9

• If illegal evidence is admitted, conviction should be overturned on appeal unless Gov can show beyond reasonable doubt that error was harmless.
• Conviction will be upheld if it would have resulted despite improper evidence.
• In a habeas proceeding where petitioner claims con error, petitioner should be released if they can show that error had a substantial & injurious effect/ influence in determining jury’s verdict; if judge is in grave doubt as to harm, petition must be granted.

Question 10

tip

Answer 10

Harmless error standard never applies to denial of right to counsel at trial; this error is never harmless.

Question 11

ENFORCING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Answer 11

• D is entitled to have admissibility of evidence/ confession decided as a MOL by a judge out of hearing of jury.
• Gov bears burden of establishing admissibility by a preponderance of evidence.
• D has right to testify at suppression hearing w/o their testimony being admitted against them at trial on issue of guilt.