Explain fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and miranda doctrine in relation to admissibility of evidence

Answer 1

The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence obtained through illegal means or as a result of a previous illegal action. This doctrine holds that evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, such as through an illegal search or seizure, is inadmissible in court. The rationale behind this doctrine is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in unlawful conduct in order to obtain evidence.

The Miranda doctrine, on the other hand, is a legal principle that stems from the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which established that individuals in police custody must be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If a suspect is not properly informed of these rights, any statements or evidence obtained from them during questioning may be deemed inadmissible in court.

In relation to the admissibility of evidence, both the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the Miranda doctrine serve to protect the rights of individuals during criminal investigations and legal proceedings. By excluding evidence obtained through illegal means or without proper adherence to constitutional rights, the courts aim to ensure a fair trial and uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.