Which case introduced the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine?

Which case introduced the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine?

• A. Wong Sun v. United States
• B. Mapp v. Ohio
• C. Gideon v. Wainwright
• D. Terry v. Ohio

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that evidence obtained through an illegal search or arrest (and anything derived from that illegality, like resulting statements) is generally not admissible in court to deter police misconduct. This is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The case that first introduced this concept is Wong Sun v. United States. In that 1963 decision, the Supreme Court held that items seized as a result of an unlawful arrest and search must be excluded, and statements obtained from the suspect due to that illegality are tainted and cannot be used to convict, unless later exceptions apply. This established that the illegality taints not just the initial evidence but also derivative evidence or information flowing from it. The other cases listed contribute to related aspects of criminal procedure—Mapp v. Ohio extended the exclusionary rule to the states, Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees the right to counsel, and Terry v. Ohio addresses stop-and-frisk—yet none of them introduced the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree concept.

The main idea here is that evidence obtained through an illegal search or arrest (and anything derived from that illegality, like resulting statements) is generally not admissible in court to deter police misconduct. This is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

The case that first introduced this concept is Wong Sun v. United States. In that 1963 decision, the Supreme Court held that items seized as a result of an unlawful arrest and search must be excluded, and statements obtained from the suspect due to that illegality are tainted and cannot be used to convict, unless later exceptions apply. This established that the illegality taints not just the initial evidence but also derivative evidence or information flowing from it.

The other cases listed contribute to related aspects of criminal procedure—Mapp v. Ohio extended the exclusionary rule to the states, Gideon v. Wainwright guarantees the right to counsel, and Terry v. Ohio addresses stop-and-frisk—yet none of them introduced the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree concept.