Service & Results.

nyc criminal lawyers over 30 years of experienceWe Know How To Win Cases

Spodek Law Group handles tough cases
nationwide, that demand excellence.

Get Free Consultation

Faced 5+ Years in Prison

People Vs Joseph Amico

Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.

Faced 10+ Years in Prison

People Vs. Anna Sorokin

Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.

Faced 3+ Years in Prison

People Vs. Genevieve Sabourin

Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.

Faced Potential Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell Juror

Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.

Why Choose Us

Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.

Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.

We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.

Law in the Media

View All

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

By Spodek Law Group | February 23, 2017
(Last Updated On: July 27, 2023)

Last Updated on: 27th July 2023, 06:33 pm

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine is a legal rule recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. The doctrine basically holds that, where the source of evidence is tainted due to unconstitutional conduct on the part of the police, then the evidence discovered as a result of that tainted source is also tainted and inadmissible in court proceedings, including trials. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine was first established by the Supreme Court in 1920.
The doctrine is part of what is known as the Exclusionary Rule, which holds that, generally, evidence which has been gathered in violation of a person’s Constitutional rights is inadmissible and will not be allowed to be presented in court. Thus, under the Exclusionary Rule, a statement or confession given by a defendant by means of improper police questioning (for instance, in violation of the Miranda Rule), evidence gathered in violation of the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment or information learned during an illegal arrest, will not be allowed in court, even if it is relevant to the case.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine takes the Exclusionary Rule one step further by directing that, where improper police conduct (for instance, an illegal and unconstitutional search or improper questioning of a suspect) leads the police to additional evidence, that additional evidence, called “tainted evidence,” will also be excluded from court and the prosecution may not use the tainted evidence against the defendant. As an example, where police learn of material evidence from statements made during an illegal arrest, in violation of the Miranda rule or during an unlawful search, that evidence is tainted and may be excluded.
However, as with most everything involved in the law, it’s not always that simple. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.
The first exception allows the tainted evidence to be admitted in court if it was discovered, in some measure, by means of an untainted source. So, if improper conduct led the police to the tainted evidence, but there was also a second source which led them to the evidence without a constitutional violation, the Exclusionary Rule does not apply to bar that evidence. If, for instance, there was a second, constitutionally proper and independent search done after an earlier, improper search, the source of the evidence could be considered as an independent source, removing the “taint” and making the evidence admissible in court.
The second exception allows admission of the tainted evidence where its discovery was inevitable and would have happened even without the unlawful police conduct. If the court finds that normal and proper investigation by law enforcement would have inevitably led to the discovery of the tainted evidence, it can still be received in court, despite the separate unconstitutional police conduct.
The third exception is what is commonly referred to as the Attenuation Doctrine. If the connection between the discovery of the tainted evidence and the improper or unconstitutional police conduct is too attenuated, weak or too remote, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine will not apply to exclude the tainted evidence at trial. Some of the factors considered by courts in determining whether this exception applies are the length of time and circumstances occurring between the improper police conduct and the discovery of the evidence, the degree of the police misconduct and the nature of the evidence itself.
The final exception, known as the Good Faith Exception, applies where police conduct a search based on a warrant, but that warrant is later found to have been improperly issued. If the police acted in good faith based on the warrant, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine does not apply to exclude evidence discovered by the police relying on that warrant. The Good Faith Exception has also been applied to cases where the police have acted on an arrest warrant which, unknown to them, had been earlier quashed or cancelled. Under this exception, evidence gathered in a search following execution of that warrant may not be subject to exclusion under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

Free Consultation


I was searching for a law firm with some power to help me deal with a warrant in New York . After 6 days I decided to go with Spodek Law Group. It helped that This law firm is well respected by not only the top law firms in New York , but the DA , Judge as well. I...

~Fonder Brandon

5 Stars
It was my good fortune to retain Spodek Law Group for representation for my legal needs. From the beginning, communication was prompt and thorough. Todd, Kenneth and Alex were the first people I worked with and they all made me, and my company Qumana skincare feel comfortable and confident that the team was going to work hard for me. Everything...

~A G

5 Stars
After meeting with several law firms, I chose the Spodek Law Group not only for their professionalism and experience, but for the personal attention given to me right from the initial consultation. It is important to recognize how crucial having the right legal team is when faced with potentially life altering events that impact families and the lives of loved...

~George Cherubini

Spodek Law Group

White Glove Service

We Provide Superior Service, Excellent Results, At A Level Superior To Other Criminal Defense Law Firms. Regardless Of Where Your Case Is, Nationwide, We Can Help You.
View More

Request Free Consultation

Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.


85 Broad St 30th Floor, New York, NY 10004


get directions

Los Angeles

611 S Catalina St Suite 222, Los Angeles, CA 90005


get directions


35-37 36th St, 2nd Floor Astoria, NY 11106


get directions


195 Montague St., 14th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201


get directions
Call Now!