holding that a witness's trial testimony was not subject to suppression as the fruit of the poisonous tree because his testimony was attenuated from the illegal police conduct and the witness would have been discovered through ordinary police investigation
How later courts described this case
- holding that a witness's trial testimony was not subject to suppression as the fruit of the poisonous tree because his testimony was attenuated from the illegal police conduct and the witness would have been discovered through ordinary police investigation
- holding that police are sufficiently “actively pursuing” evidence in a witness’s possession when they have evidence that would have led to the witness’s discovery had the witness not first been discovered through unlawful means
- noting that “[t]he exclusionary rule bars evidentiary ‘fruit’ obtained ‘as a direct result’ of an illegal search or an illegal coercive interrogation” but admitting evidence derived from involuntary statements based on the inevitable discovery exception.
- stating that the witness’ “testimony was ‘in no way coerced’ in the Ceccolini sense, although it was partially induced by a grant of immunity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
R. LANIER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I concur in the result and in all of the opinion except the alternate ground for the decision expressed in part IV of the opinion.