That is, evidence seized unlawfully from a defendant by police cannot be used against the defendant at trial. Thus, the rock is a “fruit of the poisonous tree” and must be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule.

But for the unlawful arrest, the rock would not have been discovered. The defendant moves to suppress the rock before trial on the ground that the arrest and subsequent search were unlawful because the officer arrested him without probable cause. The defendant is charged with possession of cocaine and pleads not guilty at the arraignment. If the defendant loses, the case proceeds to trial, unless he pleads guilty.įor example, let us suppose that a police officer arrested a defendant without probable cause and discovered a rock of crack cocaine in a pocket in the defendant’s jacket during the search incident to the arrest. Hearings on potentially outcome-determinative motions, such as a motion to suppress evidence, are always held before trial because, if the moving party wins (i.e., the defendant), the case is dismissed and there is no trial. The motion for immunity is similar to a motion to suppress evidence because, if the motion is granted, the case is over. I write today to clear up some remaining uncertainty regarding the timing for a motion for immunity and the immunity hearing.

Bodylanguagesuccess.com flat affect