Exclusionary Rule Flashcards
Exclusionary Rule
Evidence, whether physical or testimonial, that is obtained in violation of a federal statutory or constitutional provision is inadmissible in court against the individual whose rights were violated.
Case in Chief v. Cross Examination (Exclusionary Rule)
Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is excluded from the prosecution’s case in chief only.
It may be introduced to impeach the defendant’s testimony on cross examination.
A confession taken in violation of Miranda is admissible for impeachment purposes.
Evidence obtained from an illegal search may be used to impeach the defendant’s (but not others) statements.
Violation of Knock and Announce Rule
A failure to comply with the knock and announce rules does not require suppression of evidence that is subsequently discovered
Can still file a civil claim
Police Error (Exclusionary Rule)
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.
To trigger the exclusionary rule, erroneous police conduct must be deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent.
Officers’ Reasonable Mistakes (Exclusionary Rule)
The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained erroneously when executing a search warrant, provided an officer’s mistake was reasonable.
Think about the case when officers thought they were searching a single apartment, but actually searched two apartments
Inapplicable to Grand Juries, Civil Proceedings, Violations of State Law, 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 inapplicable at parole revocation proceedings, in civil proceedings, or where evidence was obtained contrary only to state law or agency rules.
In Court Identification (exclusionary rule)
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 Identification (Exclusionary Rule)
Unduly suggestive out of court identifications that create a substantial likelihood of misidentification can violate the due process clause.
However, the court will not consider applying the exclusionary rule unless the unnecessarily suggestive circumstances were arranged by the police
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Evidence obtained by exploiting prior unconstitutional conduct (derivative or secondary evidence) is called fruit of the poisonous tree. Like direct evidence obtained in violation of the constitution, it is inadmissible in the prosecutor’s case in chief.
Admitting Tainted Fruit
To nullify fruit of the poisonous tree, prosecutors must show a breach in the causal link between the original illegality and the criminal evidence that is later discovered.
This can be accomplished by three doctrines:
1) Independent Source
2) Inevitable Discovery
3) Attenuation
Independent Source
Fruit of the poisonous tree is admissible when the source for the discovery and seizure of the evidence is distinct from the original legality
EX: independent, parallel process initiated by other officers
Inevitable Discovery
Fruit of the poisonous tree is admissible where the evidence would necessarily have been discovered through lawful means.
EX: the body of a dead girl discovered through an unlawful interrogation would have been admissible if the police were conducting a grid search of the area in question
Attenuation
Fruit of the poisonous tree is admissible where the passage of time, intervening events, and the non-flagrant nature of the official misconduct purge the taint of the original illegality
EX: Defendant is illegally arrested peacefully on Friday night and released on saturday. On Tuesday, he returns to the station and confesses.
Harmless Error Test
If illegal evidence is admitted, a resulting conviction should be overturned on appeal unless the government can show beyond a 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 is claiming constitutional error, the petitioner should be released if they can show that the error had a substantial and injurious effect or inflict in detaining the jury’s verdict.
NOTE – The harmless error standard never applies to the denial of the right to counsel at trial – this is never a harmless error
