On the fruit principle of American poison tree

-also on the enlightenment to the legislation of criminal evidence in China.

Wang Haiyan

Doctoral student of China University of Political Science and Law.

Violation of the relevant provisions of the US Constitution on arrest, search, seizure, electronic monitoring, interrogation, identification, etc. , the parties may bring an infringement lawsuit.

Litigation requires judicial authorities to issue injunctions, and administrative sanctions or even criminal penalties should be imposed on those who violate the Constitution. However, this violates the prohibition of the Constitution.

The most direct consequence of stipulating criminal judicial procedure is the exclusion of evidence. Scholars in China generally interpret American Chinese exclusion rules as violating the United States.

The fourth amendment of the constitution leads to the rule of excluding illegal evidence, but less attention is paid to the violation of the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment and the violation of

Exclusion rules arising from other due process. Although the basis of each exclusion rule is different, these different constitutional guarantees

There are many similarities-the most obvious one is that different exclusion rules require the application of the principle of the fruit of the poison tree, although there are some differences in specific applications.

Difference. Evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in violation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and laws should be excluded in the trial, which is the basic requirement of the exclusion rule.

However, the most complicated way to exclude the essence of rules and apply them is the fruit of poison tree theory. The basis of this paper is the principle of the fruit of poison tree (exclusion rule

Then, the establishment, development (restriction) and application in special circumstances of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China are discussed in order to make a preliminary study on the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China.

Legislation helps.

First, the application basis of the principle of fruit of poisonous tree-exclusion rule [1]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States stipulates that no one shall be forced to testify against himself. The Federal Supreme Court pointed out that those who violate the Fifth Amendment

The core is to allow the prosecution to use the confession obtained by the defendant through coercion in criminal trials. If the defendant's confession was made through his own testimony,

According to the crime clause, if the confession was obtained through "coercion", the court should prohibit the use of the confession. At first, people thought that the Miranda rule required rice to be excluded.

Randa warned that the confession obtained through the trial reflected the absolute exclusion required by the Fifth Amendment. Today, however, the Federal Supreme Court

There are different understandings of Miranda rule, that is, the scope of Miranda exclusion rule is wider than the Fifth Amendment itself, even if

There is no compelling factor that violates the Fifth Amendment, and it is also possible to exclude the defendant's confession. [2] Therefore, this led to Milan's violation.

The scope of application of the exclusion rule caused by reaching the warning is different from that caused by violating the Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, the poison tree

When the fruit principle is applied to these two exclusion rules, there are also great differences, which will be discussed in the later part.

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States stipulates that the defendant should be assisted by a lawyer at every important stage of criminal proceedings. If the defendant

People have not given up their right to help lawyers, and there is no lawyer present at the important stage of investigation, so the evidence obtained at the trial is not available.

Mining. For example, when the defendant lined up for identification, the defendant did not get the help of a lawyer, and the evidence obtained by identification was inadmissible.

Make love. As for the exclusion rule in the sense of the Sixth Amendment, we can see from the case law that there are different theoretical bases. First, the Federal Supreme Court

It has been shown that the core of violating the Sixth Amendment is that the evidence obtained without giving the defendant the right to help his lawyer is accepted in the trial. Be recognized

It is unconstitutional, whether because the privilege between lawyers and clients is not protected or because lawyers do not provide effective help.

Help, only when the trial leads to prejudice against the defendant can it constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Therefore, if government undercover personnel

Although the lawyer participated in the meeting between the defendant and his lawyer, as long as he did not disclose the information of the meeting to his superior officials, the Supreme Court

It is believed that because the government has not obtained actual benefits, although the government has violated the privilege between lawyers and clients, it has not violated it.

Sixth amendment. [3] In other words, only the government destroyed the privilege between lawyers and clients and obtained evidence from it, and applied it to

During the trial, the Sixth Amendment was violated. Secondly, in some cases, the Supreme Court said that this is similar to the exclusion rule of the Fourth Amendment.

The basis-"deterrence theory" also constitutes the cornerstone of the exclusion rule in the sense of the Sixth Amendment. So, in Jill,

The judgment in Gilbert v Carl. (1967) points out that even if there is no lawyer present, it is fair to queue up for appraisal.

Lawyers can also fully question the appraisal results in court, but it is of vital significance to ensure that law enforcement agencies respect the defendants.

The most effective way to get lawyer's help in line identification is to exclude rules. Similarly, in Williams case (nix v.

Wlliams) (1984), the second-hand evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment (that is, "the fruit of the poisonous tree") is only inevitably discovered.

Only in the case of exclusion can it be adopted, which is based on the "deterrence" theory, which constitutes the traditional cornerstone of the exclusion rule.

As for whether to exclude other evidence obtained in violation of due process, generally speaking, the Federal Supreme Court holds that if the police act,

This kind of evidence will only be excluded if it is likely to make it unreliable. Therefore, if the authentication procedure is suggestive, it not only violates due process,

Moreover, the generated evidence may not be available, and its appraisal results are not credible. If interrogation methods prohibited by law are used, such as those used by the police

Rough interrogation is likely to produce unreliable confessions, and the illegal behavior of the police is presumed to be a violation of due process.

Order. In this case, it is necessary not only to relieve the deprivation of personal dignity caused by police misconduct, but also to repent.

Except ... However, in Rochin v. Cal. , 1952), this concept has gone beyond the scope of "involuntary" confession, and it is necessary to exclude the suspicion of accessory.

Evidence obtained by the suspect through his body. In the judgment of this case, the exclusion rule of the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the States, but the Luo Jin case ruled that

Resolutely: "Knocking on the defendant's stomach and making the suspect swallow two morphine pills shocked the conscience of civilized society.

As a result, due process was seriously violated, so the state government was forbidden to use these pills as evidence. "In this case, the exclusion rule is based on

On the basis of legitimacy, it is not the "reliability" required by the traditional due process exclusion rules. "Although the police's behavior has obtained evidence,

Probably reliable, but their (illegal) behavior is a serious provocation to civilized society, so it must be condemned. "[4] is

When the procedural rules are based on adversary system rather than interrogation system. However, the violation of due process in this scope refers to the police.

Review the act itself, not the evidence obtained by the police through violence. Therefore, the exclusion rule of due process is very large.

To some extent, it is to prevent the police from taking similar actions in the future. 〔5 〕

The principle of fruit of poison tree is based on the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, and it is also one of the contents of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Exclude only instruments.

The existence of rules makes it possible to apply the principle of the fruit of poison tree; Whether the evidence derived from illegal evidence (that is, "the fruit of the poisonous tree") can be accepted,

Problems to be solved urgently in the theory of "fruit of poisonous tree" The exclusion rules in Articles 4, 5 and 6 above are based on

As well as other exclusionary rules arising from violation of due process, all require the exclusion of illegal evidence directly produced by illegal acts. However, for slaves,

Whether other evidence from illegal evidence can be accepted is quite complicated.

Second, the establishment of the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree.

The principle of "fruit of poisonous tree" is the principle in the case of Silverthorn rumba company v. America (Silver Thorne Lumber Co v. America) (1920).

Established. In this case, federal agents illegally detained some books and records, but the defendant obtained the approval of the court to return them.

An order to return books and records. The agent obeyed the judge's order, but he returned the books and records before returning them.

Took pictures. During the trial, the prosecution asked the court to issue a subpoena for these documents based on these photos. The Supreme Court held that

Summons issued based on information obtained from illegal searches are invalid. Just as the prosecution cannot use unconstitutional search in court to obtain direct

Like evidence, indirect evidence obtained on the basis of such a search cannot be used. The exclusion rule applies to the "pollution" of unconstitutional house searches.

Evidence, and this "pollution" extends to other evidence based on information obtained by illegal search. silver

Thorne's case requires the exclusion of second-hand evidence from illegal evidence, which is called the principle of "fruit of poisonous tree"

Although the principle of the fruit of the poisonous tree was applied to the exclusion rule when the Fourth Amendment was first formed, it was later applied to other types.

Exclusion rules of. In the case of Ward (U. S. v. Wade) (1967), the court held that if the defendant violated the Sixth Amendment when lining up for identification,

The constitutional right of a case-the right to get the help of a lawyer-should not only exclude the evidence obtained by queuing for identification, but also, if the court in the future

Online identification is the "fruit" of queuing identification before, so it should also be excluded. The court further pointed out that the decision decided whether the court determined the pollution.

Sexual standards are the same as those applicable to the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Nix v Williams (1984), the court is reviewing it.

When considering the use of second-hand evidence (the body of the murdered person) obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment, we once again think that the principle of "fruit of the poisonous tree" and its

The Fourth Amendment develops this exception. The theoretical basis of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the Fourth Amendment is that by excluding illegal evidence,

Prevent the police from using illegal means again in the future arrest and search process. As mentioned above, article 6 amends the exclusion rule.

It was founded on the theory of "deterrence". Therefore, when considering the exclusion rule of the Sixth Amendment and the exclusion rule of the Fourth Amendment.

After the origin between them, the Federal Supreme Court reached this conclusion.

In the case of Kastigar v. United States (1972), the Federal Supreme Court held that only the use or "derivative use" of compulsory system was prohibited.

Only by obtaining testimony can the immunity provided by the privilege against self-incrimination be realized.