 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(July 2018) |
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. [1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.
The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920). [2] [3] [4] The term's first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939). [5]
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court. [6] For example, suppose a police officer obtained a key to a train station locker in the process of conducting a search of a home that was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Any evidence of a crime that came from that locker would most likely be excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal doctrine. The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the "attenuation doctrine", [7] which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated. For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))[ citation needed ]
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.[ citation needed ] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.[ citation needed ]
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[ citation needed ] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
The American doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree has generally been rejected by the courts and legislators in Australia. Courts have tended to reject evidence where there is serious risk of unreliability, but where evidence is obtained unlawfully or improperly, the interest in deterring the police from unlawful, improper, or unfair treatment of the accused is balanced against the public interest in ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice, and the seriousness of the crimes committed. Improperly obtained evidence is therefore several times more likely to be excluded from less serious offences like drug possession or disorderly conduct than from more serious ones like robbery and murder. [8]
English courts have relied on an 1861 verdict, R v Leathem, to admit evidence irrespective of the legality of the source. This is the general stance.
It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.
R v Leathem (1861) 8 Cox CC 498
Drawing on the English tradition, the doctrine does not have a parallel in India and courts will admit evidence, even if it is illegally obtained (stolen, etc.), especially if it will help prove guilt or innocence. While the quality of the evidence may be suspect, the position that the evidence should not be considered at all is not a position Indian courts take.
There are other considerations as to the admissibility of the evidence, such as whether it was extracted under duress or other violation of human rights including privacy in modern times, or "if its prejudicial effect on the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value". [9] However, this article deals only about cognisance in case the source of the evidence itself may be unlawful.
The Supreme Court of India, the highest appellate and constitutional court of India, has dealt with the matter multiple times, decisively so in 1971, ruling against the applicability of this doctrine in India. [10]
In the 2019 Rafale deal controversy, the Attorney General K. K. Venugopal argued in front of a three-member bench of the court, which included the sitting Chief Justice, that official, classified documents stolen from the government – which happened to be integral to the case in question – should not be taken cognisance of by the court, as they were classified, and the stealth and subsequent leakage to a newspaper was a crime under the Official Secrets Act. K M Joseph, from the bench, noted that "even stolen evidence can be looked into by the Court. It is well settled under Evidence Act", while the Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi, queried whether it would be correct for the court to ignore the claim of an alibi (of an accused) if it were based on stolen evidence. The third constituent of the bench, Sanjay Kaul, further noted that even if the Attorney General's argument were correct, any evidence would be admissible if it would shock the conscience of the court.
Admissibility of evidence in Indian courts hinges primarily on relevance and then on the source. The Supreme Court, especially, is empowered by the Constitution of India to have any document produced before it. In fact, in the 1971 verdict touched upon above, the Supreme Court decision relies on R v Leathem (1861).
However, considerations of protection against self-incrimination – a right guaranteed by the Constitution – are taken into account and evidence obtained under duress will be grounds to reject its validity, but not the legality of the source alone. [10]
In Ireland the only absolute prohibition on admitting illegally-obtained evidence is where the evidence was knowingly obtained in breach of constitutional rights. Evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights where this breach was inadvertent, or where it was illegal but not in breach of constitutional rights, may be admitted. [11]
The judicial system in Sweden follows a principle of "fri bevisprövning", i.e. "free evaluation of evidence ", where all sides may announce and use any and all evidence it wants, regardless of the source or how it was obtained. It is then up to the court to evaluate the evidence via the principle of "free evaluation of evidence", "Fri bevisvärdering". If a crime was committed when acquiring the evidence it may still be used in the trial and the one committing the crime may still be tried later for the crime. At the same time the court may take the crime into consideration when evaluating the value and impact of the evidence. [12]
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.
In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down the police practice of first obtaining an inadmissible confession without giving Miranda warnings, then issuing the warnings, and then obtaining a second confession. Justice David Souter announced the judgment of the Court and wrote for a plurality of four justices that the second confession was admissible only if the intermediate Miranda warnings were "effective enough to accomplish their object." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion that the second confession should be inadmissible only if "the two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning."
False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case. Falsified evidence could be created by either side in a case, or by someone sympathetic to either side. Misleading by suppressing evidence can also be considered a form of false evidence ; however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it cannot be proved the accused was aware of the items found or of their location. The analysis of evidence may also be forged if the person doing the forensic work finds it easier to fabricate evidence and test results than to perform the actual work involved. Parallel construction is a form of false evidence in which the evidence is truthful but its origins are untruthfully described, at times in order to avoid evidence being excluded as inadmissible due to unlawful means of procurement such as an unlawful search.
Suppression of evidence is a term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial. This could happen for several reasons. For example, if a judge believes that the evidence in question was obtained illegally, the judge can rule that it not be shown in court. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that does not go with their case and could suggest or prove to the judge or jury that the defendant is not guilty or that (s)he is legally obligated to show the defense. In the latter case, this would be a violation of the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. Also Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors to "make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense." This can result in a mistrial in the latter case and/or the dismissal of the prosecutor.
Roberto Reyes Concepcion was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from June 17, 1966 until April 18, 1973. He is remembered in the history of the Philippine Supreme Court for protecting the independence of court, and for having fought decisions which would have legitimized the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos. In recognition of his efforts against authoritarian rule, Concepcion's name was inscribed on the Wall of Remembrance at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani in 1994.
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which Silverthorne had attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., was that any evidence obtained, even indirectly, from an illegal search was inadmissible in court. He reasoned that otherwise, police would have an incentive to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to obtain derivatives of the illegally obtained evidence. This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.
Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court.
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2009. The court decided that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest based on an outstanding warrant in another jurisdiction, but the information regarding that warrant is later found to be incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency.
Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on 13 December 2007. The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA), regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963), is a United States Supreme Court decision excluding the presentation of verbal evidence and recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry. Narcotics agents unlawfully entered Toy's laundry at which point Toy indicated that Jonny was selling narcotics. The drug agents then went to Jonny and found the narcotics. Jonny made a deal to give up his supplier, Wong Sun. The agents then arrested Wong Sun. All were arraigned and released on their own recognizance. Several days later, Wong Sun voluntarily returned to the police station to make a statement, during the process of which he confessed.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbade the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness.
United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
In US law, the independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. The doctrine applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality.
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In Murray, the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of [the] earlier one."
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against the introduction of evidence obtained in an illegal arrest is not attenuated by reading the defendant their Miranda Rights.
Criminal procedure (investigation) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criminal investigation | ||
| Criminal prosecution | ||
| Charges and pleas | ||
| Related areas | ||
