Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule

If someone is briefly interrogated with highly specific and incriminating

questions while in custody (handcuffed and surrounded etc.) without Miranda

warnings....

And then later, taken out of a custody situation, yet with interrogation

continuing for hours in an unfamiliar location and further detailing the

questions they asked while in custody. The 2nd part of the questioning went

on for longer but immediately followed the 1st part that was in custody (lack

of freedom of movement or leaving). During the 2nd part non-custodial

interrogation the suspect was physiologically coerced and asked for a lawyer

multiple times. From the time of the first encounter and handcuffing until

when they left the suspect hours later, no miranda warnings were ever given.

My question is, would the lack of Miranda warnings during the first part of

the interrogation make the 2nd part of the interrogation inadmissible under

the fruit of the poisonous tree rule? And for believability, if at a hearing they

give contrary testimony of the defendant, would the defendant never be

believed over them?


Asked on 10/10/04, 11:20 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys
Terry A. Nelson Nelson & Lawless

Re: Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule

Sure, it sounds like you have grounds for suppression motion. Whether defendant's testimony is credible depends on the truth and how well he tells it. Regardless of what anyone says on this forum, it is not going to do you much good simply to know what they think. You need counsel to conduct the investigation, make the proper suppression motions and then put on the hearing effectively. If you want to discuss hiring counsel, contact me.

Read more
Answered on 10/11/04, 12:14 pm
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: Miranda and the Poisonous Fruit Rule

Without knowing more about the facts I'm not sure what to make of your claim that the suspect was no longer in custody for the second part of the interrogation. The fact that someone is no longer handcuffed or in the police station does not mean he is out of custody for Miranda purposes. Whenther someone is in custody at a given moment is a mixed question of law and fact, but you have provided only your own conclusion and no facts with which to decide whether you are correct or not.

Leaving that issue aside, Miranda applies only to interrogation of suspects while they are in custody, and no longer applies when they have been released. If the suspect truly is no longer in custody, the police can ignore his requests for an attorney without violating Miranda, though such conduct may be illegal for other reasons.

Read more
Answered on 10/11/04, 3:53 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California