Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Question 1

Wong Sun v. U.S. (S. Ct. 1963) (Is evidence obtained through illegal police conduct admissible where it is far removed from the illegal police conduct?)

Answer 1

While evidence obtained through illegal police conduct must be excluded at trial as it is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” the connection between the illegal police conduct and a relevant piece of evidence can become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, and such evidence may then be admissible.

Question 2

Brown v. Illinois (S. Ct. 1975)(Are incriminating statements made following an unlawful arrest admissible in court if the suspect was given the Miranda warnings?)

Answer 2

No. Miranda warnings alone do not guarantee admissibility for statements made following an unlawful arrest.

Incriminating statements made following an unlawful arrest are only admissible if the statements, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, are “sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint.”

Question 3

Nix v. Williams (S. Ct. 1984) (May evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted if police would have inevitably discovered it?)

Answer 3

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be admitted if police would have inevitably discovered it.

Question 4

Oregon v. Elstad (S. Ct. 1985) (If the police initially fail to administer a suspect his Miranda warnings, are subsequent statements that are made after the police administer the Miranda warnings, inadmissible because they are “tainted” by the initial failure?)

Answer 4

A suspect can make a statement that is admissible in court after being read his Miranda warnings, even when he previously made an unwarned statement, because the initial failure to read a suspect his Miranda warnings does not taint later voluntary statements.

Question 5

Missouri v. Seibert (S. Ct. 2004) (Is a suspect effectively informed of his Fifth Amendment rights when he is subject to extensive questioning and confesses, and then is read his Miranda warnings before being immediately re-interrogated?)

Answer 5

(1) A suspect subject to custodial police interrogation must be read his Miranda warnings in order to effectively convey to him his rights under the Fifth Amendment. (2) Where a subject is initially denied Miranda warnings, confesses, then is read Miranda warnings and re-confesses, the second statement is considered simultaneous and is barred as part of the same invalid statement.