What You Should Know About the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine prohibits the admission of evidence that stems from that which was obtained in an illegality in a criminal case. The doctrine was established to deter law enforcement from misconduct and illegal searches and seizures.

What is the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine?

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine extends the exclusionary rule which excludes all illegally obtained evidence from getting admitted in a criminal trial. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” refers to all evidence that stems from original evidence that was illegally obtained. The original illegal evidence is considered to be the poisonous tree, and any evidence that stems from this tree is considered to be tainted by the poison.

The purpose of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is to deter police misconduct and prohibit illegal searches and seizures to acquire evidence. For example, if the police coerce a confession from a suspect, obtain a search warrant from the coerced confession, or conduct an illegal interrogation that produces the discovery of physical evidence, the doctrine prohibits the confession and the physical evidence from becoming admitted in criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, the doctrine is applied when a criminal defense attorney files a motion to exclude evidence that would adversely affect a defendant’s case.

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to all personal testimony in a criminal case, as well as all physical evidence obtained by illegal means, with the following exceptions:

Legal Standard

Although the doctrine was established to deter police misconduct that is deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent, it may not prevent all types of evidence from getting admitted in a criminal case if it only causes marginal deterrence.

Independent Sources

The court assesses whether the evidence in question was discovered by illegal means by independent legal sources. Evidence that is acquired through independent legal sources is not prohibited by the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Even if evidence was originally discovered by an unlawful search and seizure, the evidence can still be admitted in some cases.

The independent source doctrine does not affect future evidence discovered in a case. For example, courts do not connect future evidence that’s independently acquired to prior evidence that’s tainted.

Inevitable Discovery

The doctrine does not apply to inevitable discovery. If it’s inevitable that evidence would have been eventually discovered by law enforcement without an illegal search, the evidence is admissible in court.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Stay calm and compose after getting accused of a crime but not charged in Minneapolis, MN. Do not discuss the facts of your case with anyone, including your relatives and family members. Hire a criminal defense attorney with a demonstrated record of winning cases like yours. Your attorney will discuss your rights, guide you on how to cooperate with law enforcement within the legal boundaries, and build a solid defense strategy to fight the charges you could face in the future.
Expungement and sealing of records in Minnesota affect how your criminal history appears to government agencies and the public. The main difference between the two legal actions is that expungement permanently removes past arrests, criminal charges, or convictions from private and public databases, while sealing hides the criminal record from the public. Courts, government entities, and law enforcement agencies can access sealed criminal records.
Minnesota recently passed a public safety bill that brings sweeping changes to the state’s juvenile justice system. While minors sometimes run afoul of the law, the juvenile justice system seeks to account for the differences between children and adults. Therefore, while the penalties for adults convicted of crimes focus on punishment, those for juveniles are aimed at diversion and restorative practices.