Criminal
Defense
Student
Name
University
Name
Introduction
As
a legal assistant supporting a criminal defense attorney in a homicide case,
during the strategy meeting, the lead attorney brings attention to a concerning
abundance of physical evidence that connects my client to the murder. There is
a serious danger that if this proof is presented to the jury, the case might be
lost, causing sentence of my client. But, there's also considerable evidence proving
that the police carried out illegal searches of my client's vehicle and
residence to gather this evidence by violating his legal rights.
My
team's primary objective is to prevent the introduction of this potentially
illegally obtained evidence. I have been tasked with researching the
feasibility of our team’s successfully achieving this goal. I have to research
about some following important legal questions that can affect the proceedings
of this case.
How the evidence can be introduced
to the Court?
The
attenuation doctrine allows the admission of evidence when the connection
between the unconstitutional police conduct and the discovery of evidence is
distant or interrupted by an intervening circumstance, rendering the
suppression of the evidence unnecessary (the emergence of
doctrine,2020).
The
criterion for these exceptions is the relationship between the officer's
unlawful action and the discovery of evidence, often without any intervention
from the defense.The assessment of attenuation under the Fourth Amendment
differs from the initial inquiry into voluntariness under the Due Process
Clause. Merely meeting the threshold requirements of no physical abuse or
coercion and ensuring the statement's voluntariness are necessary conditions
for its admissibility.
The
court acknowledged three exceptions, among others, to the exclusionary rule:
·
The independent source doctrine permits
the use of evidence obtained from an unlawful search if it was also acquired
independently by law enforcement.
·
Inevitable discovery allows for the
inclusion of evidence that would have inevitably been discovered without the
involvement of unconstitutional actions.
Here
,I don’t think so judge will allow the introduction of evidence in this case
police has violated the constitutional rights of my client.
Fruit
of the Poisonous tree and Current Case
The
legal theory of "Fruit of the poisonous tree" refers to proofs
obtained unlawfully, where both the basis (the "tree") and the proof
itself become unusable (Lemley, 2016). This legal concept was
first defined in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)
and was again explained by Justice Felix Frankfurter in case of Nardone v.
United States (1939).
According
to the legal expert such kind of proof is not admissible in the court of law. For
example, if a police officer illegally gathers a key of a station closet while carrying out an illegal
search of a house (violating the Fourth Amendment), any proof linked to a misconduct
found in that closet would probably be disqualified under the "fruit of
the poisonous tree" rule. Though, the testament of an eye witness found using
unlawful means might not be omitted due to the "attenuation
doctrine," that lets certain evidence to be acceptable if the connection
between the unlawful police behavior and the subsequent evidence is reasonably weakened.
For instance, if a eyewitness willingly offers testimony, their testament
itself might be deemed autonomous enough to "attenuate" the link
between the government's unlawful discovery of the witness and their voluntary
testimony (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978)).
The
"fruit of the poisonous tree" idea is an addition of the exclusionary
clause that generally forbids the proof admission acquired violating of the
Fourth Amendment in a criminal hearing (Yeager, 2023). Both
doctrines intents to discourage law implementation from utilizing illegal tactics
to gather evidence.
The
exclusionary rule in America is also connected with the “fruit of the poisonous
tree” concept. It is a kind of legal rule extracted from constitutional law,
which forbids the usage of proof that was gathered violating the suspect's legal
rights in a court. This clause is a very good example of a prophylactic measure
founded by the courts to protect legal rights. In addition, it can also be observed
as a direct outcome of particular legal language, just like Fifth Amendment's commands
that doesn’t allow anyone to be compelled to testify against themselves in a case.
Here
my client also facing a same kind of situation where the police department has
gathered evidence by violating his basic constitutional rights. Therefore, the
rule of fruit of forbidden tree applies on this situation and hence such kind
of proof is not admissible in the court of law.
Possibility of Judge Dismissing the
Case
Suppression
of proofs is a pretrial process intended at stopping particular evidence from
being offered during the hearing, and it can be both legal and illegal.Lawful
suppression of proofs occurs when a magistrate prohibits the usage of particular
proof in court as he or she believes it may be prohibited due to a violation of
the legal rule. For instance, if the evidence was gathered in a way that infringes
the defendant's legal rights. The demand for suppression is normally started through
a pretrial motion from the defendant in a crime related case. The ultimate decision
to suppress an evidence exclusively depends on the opinion of the judge.
Therefore, whenever judge thinks, the evidence will not be offered during the hearing.
It's quite crucial to see that the jury, whose main part is to evaluate the reliability
of evidence, is not included in the procedure of evidence suppression.
In
contrast, illegal concealment of proof takes place ,when a prosecuting attorney
deliberately hides or suppresses evidence that should have been revealed as per
the Brady Rule (Daughety & Reinganum, 2018). The
Brady Rule states that prosecuting attorney should offer the defense along with
material evidence in their control, and failure to do so means that proofs are
unusable in the hearing (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 1963).
The
Brady rule has proven that the defendant has the constitutional right to analyse
all possibly exculpatory proofs. This means the investigator must not only
offer evidence that might suggest the defendant's fault but also reveal any
evidence that could show the defendant's purity. Latest Supreme Court decisions
have extended the scope of Brady to involve proof submitted in a police
officer's personnel files (BORHANIAN & KIM, 2021).
According to Brady, any proof that could influence the reliability of a police
officer as a witness should be evaluated exculpatory and made accessible to the
defense during the detection stage.
One
of the kind of proofs that may be considered exculpatory is if a police officer
has a recorded past of being unfaithful in their personnel file. In reply to
these judicial verdicts, law enforcement managers have executed strict rules,
like the "No Lies" policy, to stop deceit inside their ranks.
Deception, which involves intending to mislead others through communication,
falls under the broader category of lying. Deception can encompass not only
spoken or written statements but also any actions that convey misleading
messages to others.Historically, not all intentionally deceptive behavior in
social interactions has been universally considered improper.
Recognizing
that certain forms of deceptive behavior can be deemed acceptable helps us
distinguish between deceptive misconduct and legitimate practices. Police
officers often find themselves engaged in a considerable amount of deceptive
conduct while performing their duties, which is essential for maintaining public
safety. While lies driven by necessity, harmless lies, and those told in jest
might be considered permissible forms of deception within law enforcement, the
real issue arises with malicious lies, which constitute true misconduct by
officers.
Intentional deceptive
conduct can manifest in various ways, such as deceptive actions in formal
situations, withholding crucial information, or fabricating false evidence.
However, the implementation of the "No Lies" rule has led managers to
feel that their discretion in handling cases falling outside the justified or
excusable categories has been curtailed, as a result of adhering strictly to
the principles established by the Brady decision.
Here
my client also facing a same kind of setting where the police department has collected
the evidence by trespassing. Therefore, judge might dismiss the case by
suppressing the evidence as these proofs are gathered through illegal means
that are not allowed in the court of law.
Conclusion
After
analyzing the case details,I conclude that our client will get the relief from
the courts as his constitutional rights have been violated by the police
investigation.
Reference:
BORHANIAN, S., & KIM,
J. G. (2021). Discovery and the prosecutor’s ethical obligations - with respect
to the US Supreme Court’s Brady rule -. Ewha Law Journal, 25(3),
121–158. https://doi.org/10.32632/elj.2021.25.3.121
Daughety, A. F., &
Reinganum, J. F. (2018). Evidence suppression by prosecutors: Violations of the
brady rule. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175522
The emergence of doctrine.
(2020). The Life of Christian Doctrine.
https://doi.org/10.5040/9780567690029.0009
Lemley, M. A. (2016). The
fruit of the poisonous tree in IP law. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2867099
Yeager, D. B. (2023). A
history of fruit of the poisonous tree (1916-1942). SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4385356
