Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
cheeseee
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:10 pm
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Can someone explain how evidence derived in violation of Miranda is excluded from the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree? I thought if there's a miranda violation, the statement would be inadmissible.
-
CaYLaw
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:43 pm
Re: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The exclusionary Rule does not per se apply to Miranda violations to make it inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree."cheeseee wrote:Can someone explain how evidence derived in violation of Miranda is excluded from the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree? I thought if there's a miranda violation, the statement would be inadmissible.
The general rule is that the statement obtained in violation is inadmissible in the Government’s Case-in-Chief, but may be admissible to IMPEACH the defendant. Further note that the IMPEACHMENT EXCEPTION does NOT apply to statements obtained that are coerced or involuntary; and also that the prosecution cannot use a defendant's silence after police issue the Miranda warnings for impeachment purposes.
Nuance: Also, even if the statement in violation of Miranda is admitted at trial, it could be subject to the "harmless error rule," where the verdict can be upheld if the Govt. can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that the error was of minimal significance and there is otherwise overwhelming evidence to sustain the conviction, despite the tainted evidence.
Hope this helps.
