Derivative physical evidence (difference between Military Rules of Evidence and Supreme Court jurisprudence).

  1. bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys10.05.29PMcopyMil. R. Evid. 304(a) states that “[A]n involuntary statement or any derivative evidence therefrom may not be received in evidence . . . .” Therefore, in the military, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to evidence derived from inadmissible statements.
  2. But see United States v. Patane , 542 U.S. 630 (2004). After arresting the defendant at his house and before completely giving him Miranda warnings, the police asked him where his pistol was. The defendant told the officers the location of the pistol, and then, per their request, gave the officers permission to enter and seize it. The Supreme Court held that the pistol was admissible. A plurality of the Court concluded that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendmentprotects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal proceeding. Thus, the Clause cannot be violated by admitting nontestimonial evidence obtained through the use of unwarned, yet voluntary statements. Creating a blanket suppression rule for such evidence does not serve the Fifth Amendment’s goals of “assuring trustworthy evidence” or deterring police misconduct. Additionally, the protections of Miranda are not violated when officers fail to give warnings, regardless of whether the failure is negligent or intentional. Instead, Miranda’s protections are violated when unwarned statements are admitted against the declarant at trial. Suppression of unwarned statements is a complete remedy to protect this fundamental “trial right.” Therefore, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine does not apply to evidence derived from Miranda violations.

Rules of Evidence

Suppression of unwarned statements