poisonous tree doctrine in Mississippi

2026“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine” is part of “the exclusionary rule[, which] ‘prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials’” that were unlawfully obtained as well as “testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” Green v. State, 344 So. 3d 854 , 857 (¶12) (Miss. 2022) (quoting Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1988)).

2022“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine—also known as the exclusionary rule—‘prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search.’” Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2532 , 101 L.

2016Furthermore, we recognize that “the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible.” Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1984). ¶23.

2003This Court has held "that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible." Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So.2d 756 (Miss.1984); Hall v. State, 427 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss.1983), and specifically overruling a case where the first confession was given without Miranda and the second confession was deemed inadmissible).

2003This Court has held "that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible." Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So.2d 756 (Miss.1984); Hall v. State, 427 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss.1983), and specifically overruling a case where the first confession was given without Miranda and the second confession was deemed inadmissible).

2000This Court has held “that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible.” Yates v. State, 467 So. 2d 884, 887 (Miss. 1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So. 2d 756 (Miss. 1984); Hall v. State, 427 So. 2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1982), and specifically overruling a case where the first confession was given without Miranda and the second confession was deemed inadmissible).

2020Our supreme court has held “that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible.” Yates v. State, 467 So. 2d 17 884, 887 (Miss. 1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So. 2d 756, 759-60 (Miss. 1984)). ¶36.

2003This Court has held "that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible." Yates v. State, 467 So.2d 884, 887 (Miss.1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So.2d 756 (Miss.1984); Hall v. State, 427 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss.1983), and specifically overruling a case where the first confession was given without Miranda and the second confession was deemed inadmissible).

2026“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine” is part of “the exclusionary rule[, which] ‘prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials’” that were unlawfully obtained as well as “testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” Green v. State, 344 So. 3d 854 , 857 (¶12) (Miss. 2022) (quoting Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991); Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 (1988)).

2022“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine—also known as the exclusionary rule—‘prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search.’” Marshall v. State, 584 So. 2d 437, 438 (Miss. 1991) (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2532 , 101 L.

2026The doctrine precludes “the introduction of derivative evidence, both tangible and testimonial, that is, the product of the primary evidence, or that is otherwise acquired as a result of the unlawful [obtaining of evidence], up to the point at which the connection becomes ‘so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’” Id. (quoting Murray, 487 U.S. at 536-37 ) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 (1963)). ¶60.

2022See, e.g., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S. Ct. 182 , 64 L.

2022See, e.g., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S. Ct. 182 , 64 L.

2022See Clark v. State, 891 So. 2d 136, 142 (Miss. 2004) (“[E]ven errors involving a violation of an accused’s constitutional rights may be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the weight of the evidence against the accused is overwhelming.” 4 Exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine have been carved out by the United States Supreme Court.

2021Ct. App. 2008). 4 “And the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine makes inadmissible tangible evidence obtained incident to an unlawful search or seizure.” Cameron, 175 So. 3d at 577 (¶8).

2020Our supreme court has held “that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is defeated where the confession is judged admissible.” Yates v. State, 467 So. 2d 17 884, 887 (Miss. 1984) (citing Wiley v. State, 449 So. 2d 756, 759-60 (Miss. 1984)). ¶36.

2013“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine is an exclusionary rule that makes inadmissible tangible evidence obtained incident to an unlawful search or seizure.” Mosley v. State, 89 So.3d 41, 45 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citations omitted).

2006Finally, Jackson's reliance on the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, as expressed in Conerly v. State, 760 So.2d 737, 741 (¶¶ 10-11) (Miss.2000), is misguided because the issue addressed by the court therein concerns whether a confession obtained after an illegal arrest is admissible.