To be sure of whether the evidence presented is admissible, one must adhere to but not limited to one of the allowing: the exclusionary rule, and the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Exclusionary The exclusionary rule is available to the defendant in a criminal case as a benefit in the act of a violation to their fourth amendment right, against unconstitutional searches and seizures (Cornell University Law School). In the Brady v. Maryland case, John Brady and an accomplice committed murder in the act of robbery.
The two men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. However, after the trial Brady lawyer was aware that the other accomplice had already confessed that he was the killer. Therefore, Brady made an appeal, stating that if the accomplice confession had been presented to the Jury, then they would have favored in life imprisonment for him instead of the death penalty. And upon appeal, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor to grant him a new penalty trial (Rutledge, 2011).
The exclusionary rule also states that any other evidence found within the illegal search will also be turned down, and this concept is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree The exclusionary rule constrains any evidence that was obtained through an By enquiries hat any further evidence also found as a result of the unlawful search will also be inadmissible at trial. The meaning of its name “the fruit of the poisonous tree” means that if the content of the source the “tree” is corrupt then so is everything that it produces the “fruit” (Walters, 2011).
In the case The State of Ohio v. Fairs, on December 18, 2002 and highway patrol man stopped Stephen Fairs for speeding. As the officer approached the car he smelled an odor of burnt marijuana coming from the defendants car. The officer did not see Fairs smoking nor did he see him throw anything out the window. The officer than conducted a pat-down search and found no evidence of drugs. Acting out of probable cause says the officer, he took Affair’s keys and instructed him to sit in the police car.
The officer began to explain to the defendant that he smelled marijuana and without Miranda Warning him first, the officer began to ask Fairs incriminating questions. After questioning him, the officer then Normalized him and asked the same questions again getting the same response. And the officer informed the defendant that he was going to search the icicle, and as a result of the search he found a glass pipe and cigarette papers. The defendant was convicted with a misdemeanors of drug paraphernalia.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that because the officer did not Americanize Fairs first, that all evidence was inadmissible (Proffer, 2006). In criminal cases, the evidence can either make or break the case; it is the most important factor at trial. If evidence is found illegally, as stated already it will be thrown out and be considered inadmissible. There are many other forms in which evidence can be considered corrupt, as for example if the chain of custody reoccurred are not followed directly evidence could be considered contaminated.