The admissibility and suppression of evidence during court proceedings is a critical part of criminal procedure. These two aspects are deep-seated given that they can alter the direction of the proceedings and hence the fate of the defendant. In the given case scenario, the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine can help the client suppress the illegal evidence, although the prosecution can pursue the exclusionary rule exceptions to protect the evidence’s admissibility.
The Exclusionary Rule
The US Supreme Court ratified the exclusionary rule in 1914 to protect American citizens against unlawful searches and seizures. This rule holds that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used against criminal defendants at trial” (Nir, 2020, p. 97). In this sense, the rule serves as a deterrent against police misconduct. It also mandates courts to render incriminating evidence as inadmissible if the defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the police violated the Fourth Amendment’s protections in the course of collection. Furthermore, this rule allows defendants to file a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence collected unlawfully. Therefore, the motive of the exclusionary rule is to prevent illegally collected evidence from being admissible during court proceedings.
In the context of the given case scenario, the exclusionary rule can work in favor of the client. According to the scenario, there is evidence that the police violated the client’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an unconstitutional search and seizure on the client’s vehicle and resident. Consequently, the exclusionary rule might allow the courts the mandate of excluding the physical evidence collected linking the client to the murder (Worall, 2024). Even if the evidence were to be admissible to trial, the rule would allow the defense attorney to file a motion of suppression to challenge such admissibility. Therefore, the lead defense attorney can succeed in preventing the admissibility of the illegally collected evidence by invoking the exclusionary rule and thus make a case in favor of the client.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Another legal concept applicable in this scenario is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. According to Bleakley (2019), the fruit of the poisonous tree refers to “unlawfully obtained evidence…that it is indelibly tarnished by the methods by which it was acquired” (p. 230). However, such tarnished evidence may become admissible if the law enforcement can provide proof that there was good faith during its collection or it was discovered inevitably from an independent source. This doctrine extends the exclusionary rule by allowing courts the mandate evidence discovered by an unconstitutional search and seizure. Therefore, the primary evidence exposed by the constitutional violation is the poisonous tree while the subsequent evidence collected after the initial violation.
In the give scenario, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would apply to the physical evidence tying the client to the homicide. This evidence is tarnished because it was discovered through a search and seizure violating the client’s Fourth Amendment rights (Worall, 2024). In this sense, the evidence is the poisonous tree and any subsequent evidence discovered the fruit. Similar to the exclusionary rule, the defense attorney has the mandate to file a suppression motion to challenge the admissibility of the evidence. The defense should also prove the absence of good faith on the part of law enforcement. Ultimately, the doctrine would favor the client by ensuring that the physical evidence is rendered inadmissible during court proceedings.
Alternative Ways of Challenging Evidence Admissibility
In the event that the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree fail to hold, the defense can choose to directly file a motion to suppress the evidence. This alternative shifts the onus of proof to the defense to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there flaws inherent in the collection, handling, and analysis of the evidence (Worall, 2024). For instance, the defense team should prove that the police breached the chain of custody thereby casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence. This alternative can help exclude the evidence from the court.
The defense team also has the option of utilizing expert testimony. This strategy can effectively present the court with an analysis of inconsistencies and errors in forensic methods and evidence handling (Worall, 2024). By offering different interpretations of the evidence than those provided by the prosecution, expert testimony can aid the defense in establishing reasonable doubt among jurors. Additionally, this approach can be used in conjunction with suppression motions to further bolster the defense’s case.
A third alternative is for the defense team to call for the cross-examination of the evidence and available witnesses. The aim of cross-examination would be to expose limitations and call attention to the credibility of testimony (Worall, 2024). It may also expose biases, contradictions, and inconsistencies within the evidence handling procedures or witness testimonies. These three strategies can help the defense team to weaken the prosecution’s case by casting doubt upon the jury regarding the credibility and reliability of the evidence.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
There are four potential avenues the prosecution may use to admit the evidence if the exclusionary rule takes its course. The first is the attenuation doctrine which hold that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be presented at trial if an adequate amount of time or a later event eliminates the taint of the violation that led to the initial procurement of the evidence” (Gann, 2014, p. 3). In this sense, this avenue depends on the length of time between the police misconduct and discover of the evidence, intervening circumstances, and the intent of the police misconduct. The second avenue is the doctrine of inevitable discovery. This doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule which the prosecution can use to admit evidence collected indirectly and which would be collected after all regardless of the nature of the search. These two avenues can help the prosecution proceed with the evidence despite being excluded by the exclusionary rule.
The independent source and good faithdoctrines are two other avenues which the prosecution can pursue to keep the evidence admissible. The independent source doctrine holds that evidence collected illegally is admissible if it could still be discovered by legal means autonomous to the initial misconduct (Worall, 2024). For this doctrine to apply, the prosecution should prove that the evidence was collected from a valid and independent source. The good faith doctrine provides that evidence collected legally under a warrant and later rendered illegal can be admissible if the police provide proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was probable cause supporting the warrant. Therefore, the prosecution can apply this avenue if evidence that is invalid was collected using a valid search warrant.
Evidence Exclusion and Case Dismissal
Excluding evidence does not automatically lead to the dismissal of a case. A piece of evidence is deemed inadmissible when the court determines it cannot be used during the trial (Turner & Weigend, 2019). This decision may arise from various legal reasons, such as improper collection methods or irrelevance. If additional admissible evidence exists that supports the allegations, the case can continue even with certain exclusions. Thus, the removal of one piece of evidence does not necessarily negate the entire case if other supporting evidence remains.
On the other hand, the lack of the excluded evidence might severely undermine the prosecution or plaintiff’s case if it was important to their argument. If there is insufficientevidence to prove the case, the prosecution and the plaintiff might decide to drop the lawsuit or the court can rule that it does not have any substance and dismiss it (Worall, 2024). However, the entire strength of the case, rather than just the deletion of one piece of evidence, determines the decision to dismiss. For this reason, it is possible to influence the result of the case by eliminating evidence, but it does not ensure dismissal.
Conclusion
Overall, the Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine exist to assist defendants in seeking the suppression of illegally collected evidence in court. These rules are designed to protect defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights against unconstitutional searches and seizures. However, this protection does not guarantee case dismissal, as the prosecution can invoke exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and the Poisonous Tree doctrine to admit evidence at trial. Therefore, the defense team should carefully analyze the facts of the case and strategically apply these rules to benefit the defendant.
References
Bleakley, P. (2019). Watching the watchers: Taskforce Argos and the evidentiary issues involved with infiltrating Dark Web child exploitation networks. The Police Journal, 92(3), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X18801409
Gann, S. M. (2014). Exclusionary rule, exceptions to. In J. S. Albanese (Ed.), The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj458
Nir, E. (2020). Empowering the exclusionary rule: Using suppression motion data to improve police searches and searches in the United States. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 22(1), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355719888945
Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: A comparative overview. In S. Gless & T. Richter (Eds.), Do exclusionary rules ensure a fair trial?. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8
Worall, J. L. (2024). Criminal procedure: From first contact to appeal. (7th ed.). Pearson Publishers.
