*1
MONTANA,
Appellant,
v. GUY
OF
STATE
Plaintiff
Respondent.
ALLIES, Defendant
JOHN
No. 80-240.
14, 1980.
Submitted Nov.
Decided Dec.
1980.
Rehearing Denied
Jan.
Mike Hanser, Greely, Atty. Harold F. County Atty., Klaus P. Richter Billings, argued, Bill- Deputy County Atty., for ings, plaintiff appellant. Lerner,
Richter & Alan Lerner for argued, Billings, J. and respondent.
MR. CHIEF delivered the HASWELL opinion JUSTICE Court.
Defendant Allies was convicted of four counts of Guy John deliberate homicide trial in Yellowstone mitigated following jury District Court. He was sentenced to serve consecutive County terms of 40 years each count in the Montana imprisonment State Prison, 31, 1979, without On December this possibility parole. Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. remand the
On State charged defendant with four counts of homicide, deliberate mitigated moved prоmptly 21, 1980, certain items of evidence. suppress On April hearing was held on the motions to an Statement made suppress the defendant to Cathy Terry evidence physical consisting .22 caliber which cartridges were seized pursuant to an alleged consensual search of the defendant’s van.
On defendant’s motions to the two items suppress June were granted. The State' now from the appeals order suppressing the statements and cartridges.
The facts relevant to this follow. A appeal more detailed state- ment of the facts of this case bemay found in State v. Allies 323, 1043, 182 Mont. 606 P.2d 2352. St.Rep. Montana, crimes the case took underlying place Billings,
on November 1976. Police Billings in in- Department, crimes, had vestigating identified a Allies as Guy person John who had dealt in with the homicide drugs victims. In connection with the investigation, came to the voluntarily police station for on November and questioning November interview, the November 23 During officers Hirischi and noted Bell had that Allies trouble questions, could answering not names keep or dates and was straight on possibly drugs.
On November Allies a voluntarily took polygraph exam. The test took approximately three hours. end of By three hour defendant period, was described as to the “talking walls” and out of it.” “completely asked
On of December officers morning again police to come to the Allies station. Defendant voluntarily and was taken himself at the station around 11:00 a. m.
presented was and a X 12' room on the fourth floor. Here he isolated 12' for four hours officers Bell and questioned approximately had to eat but was under the in- Trimarco. He had not anything — of a quantity namely, methamphetamine, fluence large drugs and Bell read defendant triavil Before the session began, morphine. card, a waiver his Miranda off defendant signed rights the back of the card. printed Jeff”, or “mean a “Mutt employ
The officers attempted the first part of interrogation during nice method cop” cop he a “little emo- testified that got of the officers the session. One the offiсers Allies described the interview. tional” told eventually officers obnoxious. Both harsh and rough, generally He it was available. if needed help, he psychiatric with the November was wrong was also told something was the murderer. He officers knew he test and that the polygraph occasions, and the questioning on several was accused of the crimes after committing live with himself on how he could concentrated method of this “guilt assumption” such brutal acts. In employing lied to defendant concede they both officers freely interrogation, They to the homicides. knew of his connection about what they at the scene identified placed had been told him he positively of the crime.
At first defendant’s was story consistent with what had earlier told Detective Hirischi. He said he on his van at a working rented when the homicides occurred and had returned garage home or about 1:00 2:00 m. on November 11. After about p. minutes, Trimarco advised defendant that
twenty did they homicides, believe his that he in the story, suspect they killer, knew he was the and that he had been positively placed the scene of the crime. *4 had stated that he He story. then changed
Defendant at a to” grocery oil and “came as he changing out” “blacked where not remember said he could house. He the victim’s store near the question- During committed. were time the crimes he was at the as was defendant was shown of one of the victims she picture ing, de- found on November 11. Defendant became upset very he have committed such an act. He began at the idea could pressed to sob and threatened to commit suicide. He told the officers of his use; he believed the had landed Brothers” heavy drug “Space him; and were an evil influence over that he exerting Wyoming witchcraft; and, was a believed in that his ex-wife witch who had an evil curse on him. placed and at withdrawal he was from suffering drug
Defendant says The of- for food to relieve his discomfort. about m. asked 3:00 p. needed said he thought do not recall such Allies request. ficers that his and the officers expressed opinion hеlp, psychiatric or mental rather than criminal. Hospitaliza- was medical problem tion at Warm mentioned. Springs were the officers told defendant interrogation, they
During rather, with were informa- they seeking not “too concerned drugs” would to the homicides. said They they tion or evidence pertinent evidence, and defend- like to search his house and van for homicide consent to search: ant executed the following Allies, “I, Guy John WHO HAVE IDENTIFIED THEM- Det. Bell Trimarco
GIVE BILLINGS, OFFICERS FOR THE CITY OF SELVES AS POLICE COUNTY, TO HAVE DO HEREBY CONSENT YELLOWSTONE OR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THEM SEARCH MY HOME AD- No. Van Blue AND I HAVE ALSO BEEN GMC I DO NOT HAVE TO THESE OFFICERS VISED THAT GIVE I AM TO SEARCH MY HOME AND PROPERTY. PERMISSION CONSENT WITHOUT ANY THREATS OR GIVING THIS OF ANY TYPE USED AGAINST ME. PRESSURES Allies
SIGNED: S/Guy John ADDRESS Police Billings “WITNESS: Bell Dept. S/G B.P.D.” Trimacro ADDRESS “WITNESS: S/John 3:45 m. and Trimarco left defendant’s about p. Bell and presence van from about 4:00 the house and were engaged searching Meanwhile, was left in fourth floor rоom. m. 7:30 p. *5 threats, of his Because suicide he was “watched” Ward by Officers and Millard. testified he Allies this time asked Ward during would to when he be allowed see an and that was told he attorney to wait until Bell and returned. denied oc- Trimarco Ward that this curred. afternoon, Hanser, the both and Harold the
During Hensley Lt. Yellowstone had been on the attorney, County posted progress m., At 4:15 contacted interrogation. Hanser approximately p. Dr. a in- Hughett, State. Hanser Bryce psychiatrist employed by him was a formed there in homicides who could suspect where been remember he had when crimes were committed. He also a a and said had indicated desire to see suspect psychiatrist asked come down. Hughett station, at on the
On was further briefed arriving Hughett felt was act- situation Hanser and Lt. who he Hensley. Hughett, doctor, as a fact and a ing finder or assistant to investigator talked with from 5:00 to m. 6:00 approximately p. stated that Allies was “calm and Hughett spoke quietly willing- The defendant’s ly.” major par- discussion were topics past, his abuse and the homicides. the in- drug ticularly problem, During terview, that sodium drug, Hughett suggested amytal, hypnotic where his allow Allies to remember he had been might during 11 blackout. November Trimarco returned Dr. Bell and
After the interview by Hughett, had found drugs and van. They from defendant’s house searching the van. caliber in cartridges and a of .22 his house number in and drugs of dangerous placed Allies was arrested for possession on court justice preliminary hearing the defendant’s jail. At and was told asked see an attorney December one and that in District Court an could be appointed only attorney that court. would be appointed upon appearance Hanser, with the defendant agreed After an interview Harold next Allies day transported sodium amytal injection. after That Hospital. evening, ward Deaconess psychiatric room, from defendant’s entered strange guard noises hearing bed, found defendant crouched sobbing “The saying, Devil wants me to hurt controlled the you.” guard situation by incident, Allies having after this pray. Shortly defendant was with injected sodium Allies amytal interrogated. made several statements incriminating interview and amytal convinced to confess the next Dr. day by Hughett.
On December defendant was with four counts charged of deliberate homicide. Allies was to the maximum transported *6 unit of Warm on security State December Springs Hospital 1976, where he remained for six weeks. approximately During this defendant’s period girlfriend, visited him Cathy Terry, frequently. On each occasion she the defendant on extensively questioned his involvement in the homicides. In taken the deposition Yellowstone in she County stated that the attorney told on her one occasion that he “thought he was involved. He sаid he did not know how. He did not know he why. But he had thought used to his own gun shoot.” defendant’s at his to
Following stay Warm motion Springs, sup- the confession to the and press given the evidence to which it police led denied was District Court. The trial was and commenced was convicted four counts of deliberate mitigated homicide. This on Court reversed basically confession appeal finding was due to coercion and that was ob- it involuntary psychological tained in contravention of defendant’s to right counsel. The defend- ant was entitled to of his and confession all suppression involuntary as a evidence obtained result confession under the “fruit of tree” doctrine. pоisonous remand, the defendant moved to Upon immediately suppress .22 caliber to cartridges statement made Cathy defendant’s Terry during incarceration Warm al- Springs. was as a leged statement not introduced in the first trial result of into entered between the Yellowstone stipulation County Attorney and the defense counsel. The not to county attorney agreed attempt introduce statement if defense counsel would not his pursue of a common-law between the defendant and
theory marriage Cathy Terry. stated,
In addition the facts the Yellowstone Coun- previously also District Court considered the defend- ty testimony concerning mental condition the 1980 suppression hearing. ant’s on what he Dr. testified thаt the basis of had been told Hughett his on 9 and on the discussion with Allies December basis prior itself, discussion defendant “could and with voluntarily search,” for waive his knowledge rights give permission his expert opinion. Bell, detectives, testified that Allies appeared Trimarco rational, and not influence of be normal under the physically, who or officers saw the defendant
alcohol Two other drugs. submitted similar briefly interrogation testimony. addition, concerning testimony District considered interrogation of this condition the time the defendant’s mental Detective Bell Hughett. Dr. testimony which contradicts stable mental- “not very stated that he believed statements con- based interrogation, at thе time of the ly” a written report his “blackouts.” Bell filed witchcraft and cerning unstable mentally that the defendant on December to note for him was a rare occasion” and admitted that it “pretty *7 condition. mental to was also presented testimony
Considerable psychiatric believed that the defend- Rich testified that he District Court. Dr. the time sur- abuse” drug ant was “involved in multiple and the needle marks based on infected December rounding discovered in the and paraphernalia and of quality drugs quantity he He also stated that had of defendant’s van and residence. search Personality as a “Borderline defendant’s condition diagnosed Disorder”, of abuse drug and in the absence that and/or “[e]ven of personality such a with this typе drug dependence, person long-term planning, has difficulties with judgment, disorder or deci- results of his own behavior the natural with understanding good “was of capable using Allies He concluded that sions.” a to make a waiver to decision allow his judgment sign property to be searched.” Dr. Rich also testified that Allies’ probable drug abuse was with the not inconsistent detectives’ that he testimony normal between of appeared period 11:00 a. m. and 3:45 m. p. a on December 1976. Katherine clinical Gallagher, psychologist Warm employed prepared evaluation Springs, psychological defendant. She concluded that Allies from “suffering — illness; mental namely schizophrenia, paranoid from type, his Her apparent drug testimony addiction.” indicates that Allies was unable to follow with his decisions or make his needs through or wants known “He was led.” easily Mrs. stated that Gallagher would not have been able to waive his constitutional rights in or knowing, voluntary fashion intelligent in signing illness, consent to search mental even without coer- considering cion or She further stated that drug dependence. the stressful situa- tion station would have made him police more disturbed than have ordinarily been. Another might psychiatric expert, Alexander, Dr. concurred basically with Mrs. Gallagher’s added testimony, and that the authoritative environ- considering ment station and the interrogation аccusatory nature questioning, Allies would feel threatened ato reasonable psychiatric certainty. entered his orders the .22 caliber cart- Luedke
Judge suppressing made to on alleged Cathy Terry statement ridges June burden of He found had not sustained its 1980. prosecution that the written consent search It given voluntarily. proving was also statement made Cathy determined the “cat out doctrine. bag” was inadmissible under Terry issues We consider the following appeal: con- erred in the written finding 1. Whether the District Court 9, 1976 in- defendant on December sent to search executed voluntary? defend- erred concluding the District Whether the “cat must be under Terry
ant’s admission Cathy suppressеd doctrine? out the bag”
484 the Court erred in
We first address the issue of whether
District
discovered upon
the .22 caliber
which were
cartridges
suppressing
defendant.
a
the written consent
the
search conducted with
the
Amendments
“It is well settled under
Fourth
Fourteenth
a
a
conducted without warrant issued upon probable
search
to a few
subject only
specifically
cause is
se unreasonable . . .
‘per
States,
established and well delineated
Katz v. United
exceptions.’
507, 514,
347,
357
19 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
576]...
[O]ne
[88
ais
search conducted
the
established
...
exceptions
specifically
to
412
consent . . .” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
pursuant
2043-2044,
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
Schneckloth,
Pursuant to
the
when
seeks
prosecution
rely upon
search,
consеnt
the lawfulness of a
it
justify
has
burden of
proving
consent
freely
given.
test
voluntarily
to determine the voluntariness
applied
of consent to search is the
same
to determine the
applied
voluntariness of confession. “In
whether a defendant’s
determining
will
overborne in
par-
case,
ticular
States
Court has assessed
Supreme]
[United
of the circumstances
both the
the ac-
totality
characteristics of
cused and
details
interrogation.”
the factual
looking
confession,
circumstances
court must assess the
surrounding
accused and
psychological
impact
evaluate the legal
Schneckloth,
significance of how the accused reacted.
“Two variables first, in weigh our heavily consideration. The ly- ing defendant about how much is known about his involvement crimes, in the is to and particularly repulsive totally incompatible with the of due concepts process embedded in the federal and state constitutions. The effect is coercive and this is particularly case not lessened by the time lag between the initial interrogation and the confession. ‘subtle’ is the we weight
“The second factor to which give the time Allies from was on which exerted pressure psychological the time he confessed. he first with Bell and Trimarco until talked lies defendant to believe leading of which we speak pressure It rather than criminal.’ his was ‘medical or problem psychiatric December when Bell Trimarco began gave on get his and told him could help, their about situation opinion and the idea Warm was kept up, at possibly Springs. pressure on the 9th was reinforced later was psychological problem 1050-1051, in the with Dr. 606 P.2d Hughett.” initial contact at 2361-2362. St.Rep. utilized procedures addition the evidence ex- with presented the District Court also December tensive related to the defendant’s testimony mental condition time he executed written consent to search. discussed, testimony
As several previously expert reveаls that even absent the coercive of the in- aspects psychiatrists and the defendant’s there is doubt terrogation drug dependence, that the defendant con- capable voluntarily knowingly to the search. This reveals that the defendant was testimony senting a mental which have him from disorder suffering may prevented from a rational decision waive his constitutional making rights. This condition also was unknown to the Billings not completely Police On November Allies became Department. “squir- examination and the end the inter- rely” during polygraph view he was to the walls” and was out of it.” “talking “completely *10 1976, search, to to On December the he told the prior consenting use; offiсers of his that he believed the heavy drug “Space and in- Brothers” had landed in were an evil Wyoming exerting him; witchcraft; and, that ex- fluence over that believed in wife was a witch who had an evil curse on him. Further- placed more, the and the use of the interrogation previously after intense became de- very condemned police techniques, sob, and threatened to commit suicide. pressed, began Rich, Alexander Mrs. Dr. Dr. testimony In contrast to testified and Dr. Hughett officers several police Gallagher, is the It and normal physically. to be rational defendant appeared ignored completely the District Court that State’s position is asserted Hughett. It officers Dr. of the testimony police wtih who were in contact the only people these witnesses were testimony their as a consequence, question the date in Allies on contends The prosecution weight. be considerable given should attaching great its discretion in abused that the District Court medical only he was the since testimony, Hughett’s Dr. weight 9, on December in contact with to come expert review, the standard of it is worthwhile Prior discussing that a mental condition at the time executing to note defendant’s a consent to is a search factor to be considered in the totality circumstances. As was stated in Schneckloth: confessions, as was true with of a ‘volun- requirement
“Just consent reflects fair accommodation of the tary’ constitutional involved. In all the requirements cir- examining surrounding cumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search co- erced, must account be taken of coercive as subtly questions, police well vulnerable state who possibly subjective person consents. Those searches are the coercion product can thus out be filtered without validi- undermining continuing sum, of consent searches. In ty there is no reason for us to depart searches, the area of consent from the traditional definition of ” ‘voluntariness.’ 412 at 93 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d at 864. we standard of review in
Turning present appeal, reiterate our discussion in Alliеs L
“In we are reviewing suppression proceedings, governed by well-settled following principles:
“ ‘When motion to court, is suppress to a presented trial its analysis of the evidence presented the pretrial must hearing focus on whether impermissible were procedures followed lawby enforcement authorities. The burden of proof of voluntariness is State, and it is upon required to prove voluntariness aby of the evidence preponderance but not beyond reasonable doubt. (1974), [Citations State v. Smith omitted.]’ 164 Mont. 1395, 1397;
523 P.2d see also v. Lego Twomey
477,
619,
92 S.Ct.
“ ‘The question voluntariness largely depends facts upon case, of each no fact single . . . The being dispositive determination voluntariness, rather, depends of the cir- upon “totality (1977), cumstances.” State v. Lenon 174 [Citations omitted.]’ 264, 901, 906, Mont. 570 P.2d . . . see also Greenwald v. Wiscon- (1968), 519, 1152, sin 77; 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.wd Gallegos (1962), 49, 1209, 325, v. Colorado 370 82 S.Ct. 8 L.Ed.2d 87 488 531, 538, 614; (1968), 445 151 Mont. P.2d
ALR 2d State v. Lucero 731, 735. is factual one ad
“We
that the issue voluntariness
emphasize
(1965),
trial
White
dressed to
discretion of the
court. State v.
761,
226, 234-35,
P.2d
cert. denied 384 U.S.
146 Mont.
fact;
We do
as triers of
nor
which we have found coercive also the particularly already of the defendant’s mental condition. testimony presented rests on the volun prove burden State Again, proof this tariness and must be shown by preponderance found that the had not prosecution evidence. District Court basis of there can be no its burden and on the the record sustained doubt that substantial evidence exists finding. support Next, the Court erred in State contends District suр made Cathy statement pressing This doctrine is under the “cat out of the doctrine. bag” ap Terry in cases an inadmissible confession is obtained where plied statements. inculpatory defendant makes other subsequently has summarized the doctrine The United States Supreme follows: course, has once out of the after an accused let the cat bag by
“Of inducement, he is never thereafter no matter what the confessing,
489
of having
disadvantages
and practical
free of the psychological
is
The secret
the cat back in
bag.
confessed.
can never get
He
sense,
bemay
a later confession always
for
such a
out
In
good.
(1947),
v. Bayer
of the first. ...” United States
looked
fruit
upon
1398,
1654,
540,
1394,
532,
L.Ed.
1660.
67
91
331 U.S.
S.Ct.
This constitutional doctrine does not
result in an absolute
always
bar of the
admission. The later
statements
subsequent
inculpatory
be
rendered admissible if
demonstrates
may
prosecution
there is a
“break in
stream of events ... sufficient to insulate the
final events from the effect of all that went before.” Darwin v. Con-
(1968),
346, 349,
1488, 1490,
necticut
88 S.Ct.
634;
L.Ed.2d
see Beecher v.
Alabama
S.Ct.
admissible confession on December of Deaconess He ward custody psychiatric Hospital. of Warm State removed to the maximum unit security Springs made to on December 1976. The statement Hospital six weeks later in response occurred Cathy Terry approximately The record reveals Cathy Terry Terry’s persistent questioning. 42 times within 19-day period visited approximately and January February, factors remove contends that the following The prosecution — (1) time the defend- confession: Passage taint original December occurred on ant’s confession original was induced in late or January early admission subsequent — 1977; (2) confession original in location February Change in Bill- Hospital ward of the Deaconess was made in psychiatric security occurred at the maximum while the later admission ings (3) Manner interroga- State Hospital; unit of the Warm Springs officers by confession obtained tion the first was in- admission subsequent while the “psychiatrist-investigator” mistress, (4) by Representation defendant’s duced — the confession counsel first occurred while defendant was not counsel, however an had been attorney represented appointed and had consulted with defendant to the prior admission made Warm Springs. factors under contends that the controlling
Defense counsel *13 case are: the “cat of doctrine in the bag” present out the incarceration; the of both admis- setting defendant’s continuous the first ward in sions is similar very hospital’s psychiatric instаnce; the the defendant instance and Warm in later Springs ill both time periods diagnosed being mentally of to the which rendered him vulnerable demands succumbing has the also out that the others. Defendant points prosecution of of a break in the stream events sufficient burden proving the remove the taint of confession. original Luedke the issue as follows: resolved Judge offered, the evidentiary as well as the contentions “Weighing Court, before the materials the
“. the of the not carried prosecution . . position is. defendant’s con- the evidence. It follows of preponderance was a of admission fruit tention that the Warm Springs Hospital is and his must confession well-takеn motion inadmissible prior be GRANTED.”
We agree. under the “cat of the
In
cases decided
out
reviewing
doctrine,
we note that
determination
whether
bag”
causative link between the confessions has been broken is essential
factual determination.
the cases cited
ly case-by-case
Although
case,
both
are all
from the
factually distinguishable
present
parties
with the
these cases have found
cat out of
exception Bayer
doctrine
admission.
excluding
subsequent
bag
applicable
Connecticut,
(one
break);
Darwin v.
Beecher v.
day
supra,
Alabama,
(5
coercion”); Clewis v.
supra,
days following “gross
423, (9
(1967),
87
18 L.Ed.2d
Texas
386
S.Ct.
Mass.,
(1979),
v. Meehan
The District Court’s granting is affirmed. to Cathy Terry and the statement cartridges MELOY, Judge, and PETER G. District DALY MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY, concur. for MR. *14 sitting JUSTICE dissenting: MR. HARRISON JUSTICE of the majority opinion. to the holding must dissent I respectfully defendant made by second confession basis of the I do so on the at the was a when he patient six weeks of some the period during the majority opinion, noted in As Warm State Springs Hospital. he friend, while frequently him visited Terry, lady Cathy live-in questioned each occasion she On at Warm Springs. was patient the four members in the murders as to his involvement defendant the Yellowstone by taken In family. deposition the Tillotson 1977, told her on stated that she County attorney said he did not was involved. He that he “thought onе occasion used his he had he thought But why. did not know know how. He to shoot.” own gun conviction, defend- of his first reversal this Court
Following by confession of his involuntary immediately sought suppression ant under the of that confession as a result all evidence obtained included the suppres- tree” doctrine. This “fruit of the poisonous statements and the above-mentioned caliber cartridges sion of .22 (I at Warm his incarceration Springs. made to Cathy Terry at was not introduced statement out here that the alleged point into between of a entered as a result stipulation first trial at- county defense counsel. The attorney Yellowstone County statement to introduce the he would nоt attempt agreed torney mar- of a common-law his theory if defense counsel did pursue Court, as The District and Cathy Terry.) defendant between riage the admission made Cathy noted the majority, suppressed by doctrine. the “cat out the bag” under Terry made statement incriminating by not find that the I do confession. obtained illegally was “fruit” his alleged was first set forth by tree” doctrine The “fruit poisonous Lumber Co. v. in Silverthorne Court the United States Supreme 182, 319, 385, (1920), 64 L.Ed. U.S. 40 S.Ct. United States documents, a federal seized agent A.L.R. 1429. In Silverthorne them, defendant. The them to the and then returned photographed at trial improper: use of the held that the photographs Court the acquisition forbidding essence of provision “. . . The acquired evidence so is that not merely in a certain way evidence at it shall not be used all but that not be used before shall source from an independent of them is gained ... If knowledge others, knowledge gained by but the be like any they may proved be used it in way pro- cannot own wrong Government’s 392, at 40 S.Ct. . . .” posed 338, (1939), 60 S.Ct. 308 U.S. Later, v. United States in Nardone the rule of Silverthorne qualified the Court 84 L.Ed. connection between be a casual there might that although noting trial, “connec- offered and the evidence tree” the “poisoned the taint.” as to dissipate so attenuated tion become may 83 S.Ct. v. States Sun United Wong *15 of the its application clarified the Court 9 Supreme L.Ed. 2d forth a the set Court tree.” In Sun Wong the “fruit of poisonous discovery a subsequent whether to determine test two-part 493 (1) is evidence tainted with the the primary illegality: exclusionary has no rule where the learns of government the application source;” (2) evidence “from an the independent exclusionary has no rule where the connection the between lawless application conduct of the and the of the discovery challenged evidence become has so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. indicated
The United States that all evidence is Supreme “fruit” because it not have come to but light would for simply Rather, is, actions of the illegal police. controlling question whether, . of a “. . establishment granting primary illegality, evidence objection to which instant is made has been come of that by or means exploration illegality sufficiently distinguished McQuire, to be taint...” See purged by primary Guilt, 222. Evidence §
While the Court has failed to elaborate on what is Supreme Sun, the “independent meant source” language Wong lower federal courts state courts have many interpreted in “fruit ways term various to the of the develop exceptions tree” doctrine. courts have the “in- Many accepted poisonous to the fruit of the tree. See evitable discovery” exception poisonоus Exclu- Discovery The Inevitable Constitutional Exception Rules, (1974). sionary Columbia L.R.
A the cases indicates that the succeed reading prosecution may the taint when it can be that the in- removing established evidence would have been discovered criminating in absence of the conduct. The illegal police burden of that rests proof showing the State. See Alderman v. United States upon 89 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d often problem arising case of confessions is the of the effect inadmissible confession upon subsequent confessions. courts have certain developed is, criteria which utilize to if determine the second confession they test, under from the of the Wong purged Sun taint first primаry confession. reflects the area which best cited decision in this frequently
A
(1947), state
law is
v. Bayer
current
United States
*16
con-
91 L.Ed.
In
which I feel is
67 S.Ct.
1654. Bayer,
case,
a sec-
this
the Court dealt with the
trolling
admissibility
the in-
ond
from the defendant six months after
confession obtained
The
admissible confession.
Court upheld
admissibility
confession,
(1)
had
second
made
emphasizing
first; (2)
six
after the
was not under
second confession months
time;
(3)
of restraint in his freedom
had re-
any
sort
be used
might
ceived a fair
the second confession
warning
However, the
him.
court noted:
against
“. .
an
has
let the cat out of the
con-
. after
accused
once
bag by
inducement,
matter what the
he is never
free
no
thereafter
fessing,
con-
practical disadvantages
having
psychological
is out
fessed.
can never
the cat back
secret
get
bag.
He
sense,
for
such
a
looked
later confession
be
good.
always may
far as to
as fruit
the first. But this Court has never
so
upon
gone
hold
a confession under
which
making
circumstances
preclude
use,
its
disables the confessor from
usable one
making
perpetually
after
have
. . .”
U.S. at
those conditions
been removed
540-541,
there exists no reason a second should not have been good why jury hear allowed to that evidence.