The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine holds that any evidence found as a consequence of improperly obtained evidence should be excluded. There are some exceptions, for example, evidence that was obtained independent of the improper actions, evidence that would have been obtained no matter what, or evidence that can be shown to be so disconnected from the improper action that it doesn't matter.
I find it interesting that Crews' argument was only that the in-court identification should be excluded because the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine seems to go back further in time, to the point at which he was made part of a photo display. This evidence certainly should have been excluded.
However, there is case law which suggests that the in-court identification is an "independent" means of identification, not connected to the photo identification, which was tainted. One problem is that but for the improper detention of Crews, he might never have been in court in the first place, to be identified as the perpetrator. An additional problem is that but for the improper photo identification, the image of Crews might never have been "fixed" in the victim's mind, so it is difficult to argue that this is an independent identification of the defendant. In the case provided below, the defendant was identified in court by more than one person and was identified by at least one witness who saw him frequently. This is distinguishable from the scenario provided because there is a sole witness. Furthermore, because of the photo identification, an uncertainty is created. Is she identifying the person she recognizes from the robbery, or is she identifying the person whose photo she has seen?
On appeal, all one has to argue on is the record. There is no opportunity to enter new facts or ask new questions of witnesses. Did the photo identification evidence come in? Was there sufficient foundation to establish the victim's identification as independent of the photo...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document