Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Evidence obtained as a result of using illegally obtained evidence is also inadmissible, as what the Court has described as "fruit of the poisonous tree." You can't take an improperly obtained admission and use it to find other evidence. Unless the prosecution can prove that there was an independent source for the evidence, it stays out.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
If you're a lawyer, then perhaps you could interpret this better than I: United States v. Patane, 542 US 630
Here's a bit...
Justice Thomas, joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia, concluded that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statements. Pp. 4—12.
(a) The Miranda rule is a prophylactic employed to protect against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, U. S Const., Amdt. 5. That Clause’s core protection is a prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See, e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 764—768. It cannot be violated by the introduction of nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of voluntary statements.