Inadmissible Evidence: Case Study

Inadmissible Evidence

When discussing the outcome of criminal cases, evidence is a make or break factor. During trials, jury members rely heavily on the evidence presented to them over the arguments being made by prosecution and defense lawyers. Depending on the evidence admitted into court, it can be the nail on the coffin for some defendants to secure a conviction. Other defendants may walk free, despite the evidence against them, because the evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court; therefore, never presented to the jurors. There are a few factors to consider with evidence admissibility, and these include the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exceptions to these rules, and the applicability during an actual

The primary rights the exclusionary rule works to protect are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, while the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from self-incrimination (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). When it is determined that police officers or other government agents violated a defendant’s rights in order to collect evidence, the defense attorney can address this issue and possibly have the evidence deemed inadmissible. An extension of the exclusionary rule is the derivative evidence rule, which is also known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This doctrine extends inadmissibility of evidence that was gathered indirectly from police misconduct. “Think of the original piece of evidence as being like an apple tree. Because it was illegally planted, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, any fruit that comes from it is also illegal, as well” (Shein, 2016, para. 5). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is applicable for both evidence and witnesses that would not have been found otherwise, as well as a confession obtained following the seizure of tainted evidence (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). An example of how this

“The attenuation doctrine holds that evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by an intervening circumstance” (Denning, 2016, para. 7). To put it otherwise, this rule is constructed around time and circumstances. The fruit of the poisonous tree would typically interfere with any evidence obtained following illegal circumstances to obtain the original evidence. The attenuation rule allows the original improper actions of officers to be dissipated after a significant amount of time has passed, even though those actions have led to new evidence. The passage of time eliminates the issues surrounding misconduct by serving similar to statute of limitations. An example of the passage of time rule is in the case of Wong Sun v. United States. Wong Sun’s laundromat was illegally invaded by officers whom coerced him into making incriminating statements which supported a narcotics arrest. Wong Sun had been released on his own recognizance, yet several days later, he entered the police department and voluntarily confessed to trafficking heroin. (Gardner & Anderson, 2017). Wong Sun later attempted to have his confession suppressed using the fruit of the poisonous tree, but his motion was denied as the time between his illegal arrest and confession was enough to dispel the original taint of evidence (Gardner & Anderson,