Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisioness Tree

Question 1

Exclusionary Rule/Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Answer 1

• Under the Exclusionary Rule, evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights is inadmissible in a criminal case. Additionally, all derivative evidence is inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
• However, the exclusionary rule DOES NOT apply if: (

a) it is shown that the police had an independent source for the secondary evidence (where there is a source for discovery and seizure of the evidence that is distinct from the original illegal source);
(b) the discovery of evidence would have been inevitable regardless of the illegality;
(c) through the attenuation doctrine (which admits evidence where a defendant’s free will has been restored through the passage of time and/or intervening events); OR
(d) the police relied in good faith on a defective search warrant.

Question 2

Exclusionary Rule/Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine–Exceptions to the Good-Faith Exception

Answer 2

There are four exceptions where a police officer’s good faith reliance DOES NOT excuse an invalid warrant: (1) when the warrant is so lacking in particularity that no reasonable police officer could believe in good faith that the warrant is valid; (2) when the warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable police officer could have relied on it; (3) when the magistrate judge who issued the warrant was biased; (4) when the police officer who obtained the warrant lied on the warrant application.

Question 3

Exclusionary Rule/Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine–Grand Jury/Civil Proceedings

Answer 3

The exclusionary rule DOES NOT apply to grand juries or civil proceedings.

Question 4

Exclusionary Rule: Miranda Violations & Limitations

Answer 4

Under the Exclusionary Rule, evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s 5th Amendment Miranda rights is inadmissible in a criminal case.

However, there are limitations on the Exclusionary Rule as applied to Miranda violations.
o Limitation #1: Failure to give Miranda warnings DOES NOT require suppression of the physical evidence found because of the statements (as long as the statements are voluntary).
o Limitation #2: Subsequent statements made after Miranda warnings are admissible, UNLESS a non- Mirandized previous statement was obtained through the use of inherently coercive police tactics offensive to due process.
o Limitation #3: Statements obtained in violation of a suspect’s Miranda rights are inadmissible in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief. BUT, they may be used to impeach a defendant on cross examination. However, such statements CANNOT be used to impeach the testimony of third-party witnesses.

Question 5

Fruit of the Poisionness Tree and Miranda Violations

Answer 5

Exclusionary Rule: Miranda Violations & Limitations

Question 6

Admissibility of Coerced Statements

Answer 6

Coerced statements made by the suspect are never admissible for any purpose.

Question 7

Guilty Plea Requirements

Answer 7

A guilty plea is only valid if: (1) it is voluntary and intelligent; AND (2) the judge informs the defendant of the following at the time the plea is entered: (i) the nature of the charge; (ii) the maximum possible sentence; (iii) the mandatory minimum sentence; (iv) that the defendant has the right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and to be protected against self-incrimination; and (v) that those rights will be waived.