Problems with evidence in research and practice

¶ … Evidence

In criminal law, the prosecutor cannot introduce any information as evidence that was discovered during an illegal search or through unconstitutional methods. Under the theory that the illegal evidence (tree) is poisoned and any information that stems from it is tainted. For example: as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings," the suspect informs the police about the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.

In this case, the Supreme Court should affirm the conviction despite the fruit of the poisonous tree in this case. It is highly likely that with the first person testimony offered by the victim, the cops could not find the same information from another source. In fruit of the poisonous tree situations, the defendant can only exclude illegally obtained evidence if it was harmful to his case. In this case, there is an excellent chance that the police officers - through eyewitness testimony and other sources - would have been able to arrest the defendant anyway.

Here, with the evidence of the lineup and the photo identification, there is an excellent chance that the victim would have identified the defendant regardless of the evidence obtained illegally. Also, photo identifications and lineups are legal under the Sixth Amendment even if the defendant did not have an attorney present - so even that will not be a valid argument.

2) In criminal law, the prosecutor cannot introduce any information as evidence that was discovered during an illegal search or through unconstitutional methods. Under the theory that the illegal evidence (tree) is poisoned and any information that stems from it is tainted. For example: as part of a coerced admission made without giving a prime suspect the so-called "Miranda warnings," the suspect informs the police about the location of stolen property. Since the admission cannot be introduced as evidence in trial, neither can the stolen property.

In this case as well, the informant was not a government official but a private person. As a result, there can be no illegality in the way the police officers discovered the defendant's possible complicity in another matter entirely.

Here, the neighbor took it upon herself to inform the police of her neighbor's possible wrongdoing, and she was not pressured to do so or even requested to do so by the police.

In fact, it was only fortuitous or serendipitous that the police found out about her information that led to convicting the defendant of another crime entirely.

Basically, the relevant test in fruit of the poisonous tree cases is harmful error. If the defendant's involvement in a crime would not have been discovered without the advent of the illegally obtained information, it can be suppressed and any resulting conviction may be overturned on appeal.

In this case, the police did absolutely nothing wrong, and there was no illegally obtained evidence, so there is no possibility for overturning the conviction upon appeal to the Supreme Court.

3) All of this evidence is admissible. Even if the police informant elicited the information in the jail cell when he was not uniformed so as to avail the defendant of the knowledge that he was talking to a cop, it is still admissible. This is the case even if the defendant requested council - the idea here is, confessions cannot be forced when a defendant believes he is under the duress of police custody; if he does not believe he is being forced to talk or threatened to talk, there can be no duress, so the evidence is admissible.

And the officer can testify to what the defendant said, but it has to be in the form of exceptions to hearsay evidence. As he would be testifying to matters for the truth of the matter asserted, they have to meet hearsay exceptions - the most important one here would be admissions of a party opponent.

If the defendant were to admit something to the officers in the jail cell, then it can be considered nonhearsay - not an exception in this case - and be admitted and survive upon appeal to the supreme court.

If the evidence does not qualify for a hearsay exception, then it can still be used, but only to impeach or for other purposes and not for the truth of the matter asserted at trial.

4) In this case, the illegal questioning of the defendant would preclude usage of the evidence. The cops questioned the defendant when he could reasonably be considered under arrest - i.e., not free to go if he so chose. As a result, he was to have been read his Miranda rights, and as the police officers failed to do so, he cannot be convicted based on this evidence alone - it fails the harmful error test.