Spodek Law Group handles tough cases
nationwide, that demand excellence.
Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.
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.
Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.
Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.
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.
The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.
Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.
In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.
Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group
The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.
We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.
If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.
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.
Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.