Hypothetical Legal Question?

Songbyrd JPA âœ¡ Jewish Lawyer

First, there is an issue as to whether the trash was illegal, but assuming it was, if the search warrant was based on what was found in the trash, than even though there was a warrant it would be the fruit of the poisoness tree, and therefore the search warrant would be tossed and the search would be tossed and the retrial would be allowed,
If the search warrant was based on legally obtained evidence, than the search of the house was legal. The Supreme Court would look at the evidence from the trial and decide if what was found in the trash was harmless error, or put another way, without the trash, would that have changed a verdict by the jury.

trooper3316

There are two issues here. The first is addressed by the Exclusionary Rule (Weeks v. US and Mapp v. Ohio). Also known as the Fruit of the Poisonous tree doctrine, it states any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.

Then comes the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. This states if the evidence falls under the Exclusionary Rule, but there is a high degree of probability a separate investigation would have uncovered it anyway, then it is still admissible.

You leave yourself open to a lot of argument when you say "a part of the evidence" and later "a portion was later acquired legitimately". Depending on the interpretation of those pieces of evidence, the Court could uphold or reverse the verdict.

dezi

i would think that as long as the illegally obtained evidence was not the sole reason for the warranted search they would order a retrial omitting the illegally obtained evidence.

Guess Who ?

GREAT QUESTION

Ryanh

well i would think that as long as some of the evidance was found leagally than it wouldnt require a retrial. but than again it depends a lot on what the judge and lawyers will decide to do

ann

You said only a portion of the illegally acquired evidence could show it was obtainable through a legitimate source, therefore there was still a portion use that was tainted. If this tainted portion was material in the verdict then the Court should aside the verdict. If the portion that was retrievable legally is sufficient to prosecute, then the Court can order a re-trial.

It's That Guy

In years past, the evidence illegally found would not be admitted in court. If it had been admitted, that would be the basis for the defense to call for a mistrial, meaning the trial would be held again, and that evidence excluded. I was on a jury once, years ago, where we spent more time in the jury lounge than in the courtroom because the lawyers were arguing over what evidence was allowable to show us.

However, there was a Supreme Court decision several years ago, I wish I remembered the name so I could cite it, but I don't. In this decision the Supreme Court said that ANY evidence the police gathered was admissible, legally obtained or not, so long as the police honestly believed there was probable cause. I think this is a terrible travesty of justice, basically it means that police can just do whatever they want and then later say they had good intentions.

But based on how the Constitution was interpreted for the first couple of centuries, evidence gotten illegally would be excluded from the trial, the jury would not be able to be shown it. And if they were shown it, a mistrial would be granted and the case would be tried again.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: