Talk:Fruit of the poisonous tree

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The Miranda example in the previous version isn't correct. US v. Pantane, 124 S.Ct. 2620 (2004), allows the admission of tangible evidence found as a result of an un-Mirandized confession. --Thunk 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be merged with exclusionary rule, or at very least, it should be cut out as its own section in there. This is distinct legal term. NRK (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative usage[edit]

Factually unsound and uncited information in alternate usage tagged as requiring cite. I believe that the information should be removed if not promptly cited. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize[edit]

I put on a globalize tag. I assume other country's legal systems have similar rules. If I'm wrong, delete the tag. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any non U.S. versions after a couple of quick googles searches, at least not of this exact phrase. TobyLoobenfeld (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more general rule than evidence allowability[edit]

Until recently it was my understanding that "fruit of the poisonous tree" was a more general doctrine about disputes arising from criminal activity, for instance if the other members of your band of thieves don't give you your proper share you can't sue them for it. It is a short leap to thinking that the first judge who rejected stalker-style wiretap evidence as FOTPT was being really dismissive and pointing out that the spying was criminal, but this implication has been lost as the evidence-rules meaning has eclipsed the more general usage. I don't have a reference; just a vague memory of a conversation some years ago with someone who knew; if the right name for the doctrine that prevents the shortshared criminal from suing the other thieves could be mentioned in a response to this discussion item that would be awesome. 65.46.169.246 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not just "no one shall profit from their own wrong" ? It's also the common law principle that stops you inheriting from your parents if you murdered them. 86.151.128.124 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"attenuated"[edit]

This article should make clear what the word "attenuated" means in this context. The only definition I'm familiar with is "reduced in amplitude or magnitude", and that doesn't make sense here. Ian01 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a poorly-written and confusing sentence. I noticed it immediately myself when I read this article just now. (The sentence in question was: "The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.")

I corrected it by replacing it with: "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. It is believed that 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. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"

I hope that makes more sense. Captain Quirk (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Quirk: I may not know how to do a reference, but I did notice this ref was done wrong, and tried to fix it.

Edit by User:Darkonc added a ref where it was tagged as needing one: revision [1]. They wondered if it was done wrong, which it was, as it was formatted wrong as a direct link in the text to an external webpage.

Edit to ref by User:Mcc1789 removed the text the reference was for, so that it looked like this:

The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to,[6] 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.

Revision: [2].

I reinserted the missing text before the ref [3], so now it reads exactly as it did before and after the ref was added, and as added by User:Captain_Quirk above.

If someone could format the ref properly if not yet so, and check if the citation needed tag after the sentence from March 2018 is still needed, I would be grateful. There are a number of other statements tagged as needing citations, too. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split "History" section?[edit]

The first paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph look like they could be kept, as they are historical in nature; and the rest put into a new section, perhaps called "Description", as this is literally what that content is. However I do not want to do the actual editing myself. This is the latest edit at the time of writing: [4]. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]