Also known as: fruits · civil fruits · natural fruits
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
Derivative evidence obtained directly or indirectly from an unconstitutional search, arrest, or interrogation. The connection to the primary illegality may be attenuated by intervening circumstances, passage of time, or independent sources so that the taint is dissipated.
Derivative evidence obtained directly or indirectly from an unconstitutional search, arrest, or interrogation. The connection to the primary illegality may be attenuated by intervening circumstances, passage of time, or independent sources so that the taint is dissipated.
The produce or income generated by land or other property without diminishing its capital value. Natural fruit consists of crops and animal products while civil fruit consists of rents, interest, and similar revenues.
The produce or income generated by land or other property without diminishing its capital value. Natural fruit consists of crops and animal products while civil fruit consists of rents, interest, and similar revenues.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Felix Franco was arrested without probable cause. Officers later obtained a valid warrant and discovered a witness who identified him. The witness's testimony was admitted because the initial illegality had become sufficiently attenuated by the independent investigation that followed.
Freya Freeman's apartment was searched under a warrant that listed cash and jewelry taken during a robbery. Officers seized the items as fruits of the crime. The seizure was upheld because the warrant properly described items illegally possessed by the suspect.
Forrest Falconer hid a client's stolen cash and weapon in a new safe deposit box. Police later recovered the items after learning their location. The attorney faced sanctions because the physical evidence was not protected by privilege and his actions obstructed law enforcement access.
Fatou Fall gave an unwarned statement after arrest. The statement led to other evidence later found inadmissible as fruit. At trial the prosecution used the statement solely to challenge credibility after she testified inconsistently.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseFatima Flores received use immunity and testified before a grand jury. Prosecutors later built a case from wholly independent sources. The subsequent prosecution was permitted because it did not rely on the compelled testimony or its direct fruits.
In February 1971 petitioners were subpoenaed to appear before a United States grand jury in the Central District of California investigating violations of federal gambling and related laws. The government believed that petitioners were likely to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Prior to the scheduled appearances, the government applied to the District Court for an order directing petitioners to answer questions and produce evidence before the grand jury under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003. Petitioners opposed issuance of the order, contending that the scope of the immunity provided by the statute was not coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and therefore was not sufficient to supplant the privilege and compel their testimony. The District Court rejected this contention and ordered petitioners to appear before the grand jury and answer its questions under the grant of immunity. Petitioners appeared but refused to answer questions, asserting their privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. They were brought before the District Court, and each persisted in his refusal to answer the grand jury's questions notwithstanding the grant of immunity. The court found both in contempt and committed them to the custody of the Attorney General until either they answered the grand jury's questions or the term of the grand jury expired. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt findings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether testimony may be compelled by granting immunity from the use of compelled testimony and evidence derived therefrom or whether transactional immunity is necessary.
Frank Foster was arrested without probable cause and placed in a lineup. A witness identified him at the lineup. The same witness's in-court identification was admitted because an in-court identification is not automatically excluded merely because the defendant was present as a result of unlawful detention.
4 common questions
Derivative evidence remains admissible when the connection to the illegality has become so attenuated that the taint is dissipated. Courts consider the time elapsed, intervening circumstances, and the flagrancy of the misconduct.
Supporting sources
No. A witness's in-court identification is not automatically excluded merely because the defendant was present in a lineup as a result of an unlawful arrest.
Supporting sources
A warrant may authorize seizure of contraband, fruits of crime, and other items illegally possessed, as well as evidence of a crime or property used in committing a crime.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege protects only communications. Physical evidence of a client's crime that counsel removes or conceals is not shielded and may subject the attorney to liability.
Supporting sources
…that failure to follow the new procedures requires inexorably the exclusion of any statement by the accused, as well as the fruits thereof. Such a strict constitutional specific inserted at the nerve center of crime detection may well kill the patient. Since there is at this time a paucity of information and an…