Legal English 18

15. If I Answer Police Questions Even After I’m Given the Miranda Warning, Is It Ever Possible to Exclude What I Say?

Under some circumstances, yes. If the police induce a suspect to speak because of illegal behavior engaged in by the police, the suspect’s statements may be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. For instance, assume that the police induce a suspect to confess by confronting the suspect with objects the police seized during an illegal search. (For more on search and seizure, see Chapter 2.) If seeing the illegally seized objects induced the suspect to confess, a judge may throw out the confession as the fruit of the poisonous tree (the illegal search), even if the police first gave the Miranda warning.

More About Poisonous Fruit

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule prevents police officers and prosecutors from indirectly benefiting from improper searches and interrogations. The rule provides that if police find out about evidence as the result of an illegal search or interrogation, a judge can bar a prosecutor from using the evidence at trial. (Wong Sun v. United States, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1963.) The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine removes what would otherwise be a big incentive for police officers to conduct illegal searches and interrogations.

 
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine removes what would otherwise be a big incentive for police officers to conduct illegal searches and interrogations.  毒树之果的原则使警官即使在其他情况下也无法从事非法调查和询问。
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Legal English. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s