187:. The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the "attenuation doctrine", which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated. For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (
397:", where all sides may announce and use any and all evidence available, regardless of the source or how it was obtained. It is then up to the court to evaluate the evidence via the principle of "free evaluation of evidence", "Fri bevisvärdering". If a crime was committed when acquiring the evidence, it may still be used in the trial and the accused party may still be tried later for the crime. At the same time, the court may take the crime into consideration when evaluating the value and impact of the evidence.
968:
40:
244:
police from unlawful, improper, or unfair treatment of the accused is balanced against the public interest in ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice, and the seriousness of the crimes committed. Improperly obtained evidence is therefore several times more likely to be excluded from less serious offences like drug possession or disorderly conduct than from more serious ones like robbery and murder.
243:
The
American doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree has generally been rejected by the courts and legislators in Australia. Courts have tended to reject evidence where there is serious risk of unreliability, but where evidence is obtained unlawfully or improperly, the interest in deterring the
273:
Drawing on the
English tradition, the doctrine does not have a parallel in India and courts will admit evidence, even if it is illegally obtained (stolen, etc.), especially if it will help prove guilt or innocence. While the quality of the evidence may be suspect, the position that the evidence
198:, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
357:
However, considerations of protection against self-incrimination – a right guaranteed by the
Constitution – are taken into account and evidence obtained under duress will be grounds to reject its validity, but not the legality of the source alone.
277:
There are other considerations as to the admissibility of the evidence, such as whether it was extracted under duress or other violation of human rights including privacy in modern times, or "if its prejudicial effect on the
147:
that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.
175:
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court. For example, suppose a police officer obtained a key to a train station locker in the process of conducting a search of a home that was
289:, the highest appellate and constitutional court of India, has dealt with the matter multiple times, decisively so in 1971, ruling against the applicability of this doctrine in India.
374:
obtained in breach of constitutional rights. Evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights where this breach was inadvertent, or where it was illegal but not in breach of
387:
846:
496:
464:
445:
426:
282:
was likely to outweigh its probative value". However, this article deals only about cognisance in case the source of the evidence itself may be unlawful.
180:
342:
Admissibility of evidence in Indian courts hinges primarily on relevance and then on the source. The
Supreme Court, especially, is empowered by the
1227:
839:
307:, that official, classified documents stolen from the government – which happened to be integral to the case in question – should not be taken
24:
254:
57:
104:
832:
76:
737:
414:
158:
83:
1181:
1232:
90:
1100:
791:
183:. Any evidence of a crime that came from that locker would most likely be excluded under the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
1237:
335:, further noted that even if the Attorney General's argument were correct, any evidence would be admissible if it would
72:
311:
of by the court, as they were classified, and the stealth and subsequent leakage to a newspaper was a crime under the
1158:
650:
569:
532:
123:
1242:
1127:
350:
document produced before it. In fact, in the 1971 verdict touched upon above, the
Supreme Court decision relies on
586:
Bransdorfer, Mark S. (1987). "Miranda Right-to-Counsel
Violations and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine".
479:
61:
1196:
319:, from the bench, noted that "even stolen evidence can be looked into by the Court. It is well settled under
312:
1201:
206:
97:
1176:
440:
297:
1059:
687:
491:
168:
688:"Rejection of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Australia: a retreat from progressivism"
392:
370:
the only absolute prohibition on admitting illegally-obtained evidence is where the evidence was
293:
50:
218:
the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
1069:
864:
304:
286:
1191:
766:
1007:
486:
468:
449:
430:
407:
343:
258:, to admit evidence irrespective of the legality of the source. This is the general stance.
1047:
1012:
924:
899:
336:
226:
212:
666:
8:
1064:
367:
331:(of an accused) if it were based on stolen evidence. The third constituent of the bench,
320:
263:
It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.
201:
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
803:
792:
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/unlawfully_obtained_evidence.html
992:
984:
934:
904:
894:
855:
718:
613:
471:
452:
433:
332:
1143:
1017:
1002:
939:
824:
722:
710:
706:
646:
642:
595:
565:
528:
521:
195:
176:
163:
929:
702:
1112:
1106:
914:
909:
459:
308:
303:
argued in front of a three-member bench of the court, which included the sitting
300:
386:
The judicial system in Sweden follows a principle of "fri bevisprövning", i.e. "
1153:
1053:
944:
919:
889:
884:
222:
184:
1206:
327:, queried whether it would be correct for the court to ignore the claim of an
1221:
1036:
714:
599:
1148:
1122:
738:"Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: does it matter how you get it?"
421:
324:
316:
1186:
1163:
1090:
1085:
1025:
1095:
1042:
1030:
973:
954:
274:
should not be considered at all is not a position Indian courts take.
967:
39:
213:
it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source
144:
140:
225:, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the
194:
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an extension of the
949:
873:
879:
328:
162:, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). The term's first use was by Justice
1117:
997:
279:
156:
The doctrine underlying the name was first described in
854:
221:
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on
963:
636:
64:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
16:
Evidence derived from illegal investigatory conduct
520:
1219:
564:(2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 9.
614:"Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939)"
252:English courts have relied on an 1861 verdict,
790:"Evidence that has been collected unlawfully"
760:
758:
840:
695:University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review
559:
205:it was discovered in part as a result of an
755:
585:
562:West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 5
477:
847:
833:
560:Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005).
124:Learn how and when to remove this message
548:Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
527:(3rd ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
518:
415:Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
159:Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
1228:United States Fourth Amendment case law
685:
499:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
233:
1220:
729:
828:
767:"Column: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"
764:
686:Arenson, Kenneth J. (December 2011).
637:Gaines, Larry; Miller, LeRoy (2006).
639:Criminal Justice In Action: The Core
179:on the grounds that it violated the
62:adding citations to reliable sources
33:
13:
735:
14:
1254:
1159:Evidence law in the United States
966:
742:Cambridge University Law Society
523:Understanding Criminal Procedure
151:
38:
796:
784:
765:Varma, Sanjay (15 March 2019).
480:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
268:R v Leathem (1861) 8 Cox CC 498
49:needs additional citations for
1233:Legal doctrines and principles
1013:Deferred prosecution agreement
679:
659:
630:
606:
578:
553:
541:
512:
1:
505:
207:independent, untainted source
73:"Fruit of the poisonous tree"
25:Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (
323:", while the Chief Justice,
238:
7:
400:
388:free evaluation of evidence
137:Fruit of the poisonous tree
10:
1259:
1238:American legal terminology
361:
189:United States v. Ceccolini
18:
1172:
1136:
1128:Presentence investigation
1078:
983:
961:
863:
519:Dressler, Joshua (2002).
441:Wong Sun v. United States
381:
378:rights, may be admitted.
701:(December 2011): 17–68.
492:Sugar bowl (legal maxim)
247:
169:Nardone v. United States
1243:English-language idioms
294:Rafale deal controversy
191:, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))
1070:Statute of limitations
865:Criminal investigation
667:"attenuation doctrine"
478:
287:Supreme Court of India
265:
1008:Criminal jurisdiction
707:10536/DRO/DU:30043944
550:, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
497:Section 24(2) of the
487:Parallel construction
408:Commonwealth v. Matos
344:Constitution of India
261:
1048:Inquisitorial system
985:Criminal prosecution
925:Reasonable suspicion
900:Exigent circumstance
337:shock the conscience
313:Official Secrets Act
234:Contrasting doctrine
227:good-faith exception
58:improve this article
1065:Preliminary hearing
804:"Fri bevisprövning"
588:Indiana Law Journal
993:Adversarial system
935:Search and seizure
905:Knock-and-announce
856:Criminal procedure
808:Åklagarmyndigheten
1215:
1214:
1197:Wikimedia Commons
1144:Criminal defenses
1079:Charges and pleas
1003:Bill of attainder
940:Search of persons
643:Thomson/Wadsworth
196:exclusionary rule
164:Felix Frankfurter
143:used to describe
134:
133:
126:
108:
1250:
976:
971:
970:
930:Right to silence
849:
842:
835:
826:
825:
819:
818:
816:
815:
800:
794:
788:
782:
781:
779:
777:
762:
753:
752:
750:
748:
733:
727:
726:
692:
683:
677:
676:
674:
673:
663:
657:
656:
634:
628:
627:
625:
624:
610:
604:
603:
582:
576:
575:
557:
551:
545:
539:
538:
526:
516:
483:
396:
298:Attorney General
269:
181:Fourth Amendment
177:unconstitutional
129:
122:
118:
115:
109:
107:
66:
42:
34:
27:Once Upon a Time
21:Once Upon a Time
1258:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1168:
1132:
1113:Peremptory plea
1107:Nolo contendere
1074:
979:
972:
965:
959:
915:Pretextual stop
910:Miranda warning
859:
858:(investigation)
853:
823:
822:
813:
811:
802:
801:
797:
789:
785:
775:
773:
771:barandbench.com
763:
756:
746:
744:
734:
730:
690:
684:
680:
671:
669:
665:
664:
660:
653:
641:. Belmont, CA:
635:
631:
622:
620:
612:
611:
607:
583:
579:
572:
558:
554:
546:
542:
535:
517:
513:
508:
460:Nix v. Williams
403:
390:
384:
364:
301:K. K. Venugopal
271:
267:
250:
241:
236:
154:
130:
119:
113:
110:
67:
65:
55:
43:
32:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1256:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1213:
1212:
1210:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1166:
1161:
1156:
1151:
1146:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1082:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1054:Nolle prosequi
1050:
1045:
1040:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1000:
995:
989:
987:
981:
980:
978:
977:
962:
960:
958:
957:
952:
947:
945:Search warrant
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
920:Probable cause
917:
912:
907:
902:
897:
892:
890:Consent search
887:
885:Arrest warrant
882:
877:
869:
867:
861:
860:
852:
851:
844:
837:
829:
821:
820:
795:
783:
754:
728:
678:
658:
651:
629:
605:
577:
570:
552:
540:
533:
510:
509:
507:
504:
503:
502:
494:
489:
484:
475:
456:
437:
418:
411:
402:
399:
383:
380:
376:constitutional
363:
360:
339:of the court.
260:
249:
246:
240:
237:
235:
232:
231:
230:
223:probable cause
219:
216:
210:
185:legal doctrine
153:
150:
132:
131:
46:
44:
37:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1255:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1223:
1208:
1205:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1137:Related areas
1135:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1037:Habeas corpus
1034:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1019:Ex post facto
1016:
1014:
1011:
1009:
1006:
1004:
1001:
999:
996:
994:
991:
990:
988:
986:
982:
975:
969:
964:
956:
953:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
896:
893:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
878:
876:
875:
871:
870:
868:
866:
862:
857:
850:
845:
843:
838:
836:
831:
830:
827:
809:
805:
799:
793:
787:
772:
768:
761:
759:
743:
739:
736:Gibson, Meg.
732:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
689:
682:
668:
662:
654:
652:0-495-00305-0
648:
644:
640:
633:
619:
615:
609:
601:
597:
593:
589:
581:
573:
571:9780787663674
567:
563:
556:
549:
544:
536:
534:0-8205-5405-7
530:
525:
524:
515:
511:
501:
500:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
482:
481:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
461:
457:
454:
451:
447:
443:
442:
438:
435:
432:
428:
424:
423:
419:
417:
416:
412:
410:
409:
405:
404:
398:
394:
389:
379:
377:
373:
369:
359:
355:
353:
349:
345:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:Chief Justice
302:
299:
295:
290:
288:
283:
281:
275:
270:
264:
259:
257:
256:
245:
228:
224:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
203:
202:
199:
197:
192:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
171:
170:
165:
161:
160:
152:United States
149:
146:
142:
138:
128:
125:
117:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82:
78:
75: –
74:
70:
69:Find sources:
63:
59:
53:
52:
47:This article
45:
41:
36:
35:
30:
28:
23:episode, see
22:
1149:Criminal law
1123:Plea bargain
1105:
1060:Precognition
1052:
1035:
1018:
872:
812:. Retrieved
810:(in Swedish)
807:
798:
786:
774:. Retrieved
770:
745:. Retrieved
741:
731:
698:
694:
681:
670:. Retrieved
661:
638:
632:
621:. Retrieved
617:
608:
591:
587:
580:
561:
555:
547:
543:
522:
514:
498:
458:
439:
422:Mapp v. Ohio
420:
413:
406:
385:
375:
371:
365:
356:
351:
347:
341:
325:Ranjan Gogoi
321:Evidence Act
292:In the 2019
291:
284:
276:
272:
266:
262:
253:
251:
242:
200:
193:
188:
174:
167:
157:
155:
136:
135:
120:
111:
101:
94:
87:
80:
68:
56:Please help
51:verification
48:
26:
20:
1207:Wikiversity
1164:Legal abuse
1101:Information
1091:Arraignment
1086:Alford plea
1026:Extradition
474: (1984)
455: (1963)
436: (1961)
391: [
352:R v Leathem
333:Sanjay Kaul
255:R v Leathem
139:is a legal
1222:Categories
1192:WikiSource
1177:Wiktionary
1096:Indictment
1043:Indictment
1031:Grand jury
974:Law portal
955:Terry stop
814:2022-01-05
672:2018-12-16
623:2019-05-27
618:Justia Law
506:References
317:K M Joseph
309:cognisance
84:newspapers
1187:Wikiquote
1182:Wikibooks
895:Detention
723:151209629
715:1441-9769
600:0019-6665
584:See also
372:knowingly
239:Australia
114:July 2018
1202:Wikinews
1154:Evidence
594:: 1061.
401:See also
354:(1861).
346:to have
172:(1939).
145:evidence
141:metaphor
19:For the
950:Suspect
874:Arguido
368:Ireland
362:Ireland
98:scholar
880:Arrest
776:8 June
747:8 June
721:
713:
649:
598:
568:
531:
382:Sweden
296:, the
100:
93:
86:
79:
71:
719:S2CID
691:(PDF)
467:
448:
429:
395:]
329:alibi
248:India
105:JSTOR
91:books
1118:Plea
998:Bail
778:2019
749:2019
711:ISSN
647:ISBN
596:ISSN
566:ISBN
529:ISBN
469:U.S.
450:U.S.
431:U.S.
285:The
280:jury
215:; or
209:; or
77:news
1021:law
703:hdl
472:431
465:467
453:471
446:371
434:643
427:367
366:In
348:any
166:in
60:by
1224::
806:.
769:.
757:^
740:.
717:.
709:.
699:13
697:.
693:.
645:.
616:.
592:62
590:.
463:,
444:,
425:,
393:zh
315:.
229:).
848:e
841:t
834:v
817:.
780:.
751:.
725:.
705::
675:.
655:.
626:.
602:.
574:.
537:.
127:)
121:(
116:)
112:(
102:·
95:·
88:·
81:·
54:.
31:.
29:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
