As background, the phrase is used in the setting of the exclusionary rule. Evidence is a "fruit of the poisonous tree" if it was discovered as a result of a 4th Amendment violation, and it can't be used in court. Its source makes it "poisoned," from the "tree" of the violation.
-
-
Show this thread
-
The easy answer for where the phrase originated is that it comes from Justice Frankfurter's opinion in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939), a statutory case on the 1934 Communications Act and its the suppression remedy for unlawful wiretapping. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9606379924662568827&q=Nardone+v.+United+States,+308+U.S.+338&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 …pic.twitter.com/E2Zh5MksHB
Show this thread -
That phrase was then imported into Fourth Amendment caselaw in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).pic.twitter.com/Y3TALr6X6v
Show this thread -
But where did Justice Frankfurter get the phrase in his 1939 Nardone opinion? On that, unfortunately, I only have speculation. As far as I can tell on Westlaw, no court decision before Nardone used the phrase.
Show this thread -
I checked the briefs in Nardone, and Nardone's brief used part of it. A traditional concept in criminal law is the "fruits of crime," that is, ill-gotten gains, like stolen goods. Nardone's brief described information discovered from illegal wiretapping as a "fruit" of it:pic.twitter.com/Qwi9yTHf2U
Show this thread -
Perhaps Frankfurter took that line and added the part about the "poisonous tree." Although Frankfurter was not religious, he may have meant it to be a biblical reference to the eviction from the Garden of Eden -- eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.pic.twitter.com/oHOgb3LlhP
Show this thread -
I looked on Google's n-gram viewer, too, to see how and when the phrased was used in books. With a small number of exceptions, it seems to have really started with Frankfurter's Nardone decision in 1939.pic.twitter.com/E56N7gkhJB
Show this thread -
But what about the blips mentioning "fruit of the poisonous tree" in the 19th Century? Some were references to Genesis and the Garden of Eden. Here's one from 1853 in reference to slavery, also perhaps intended as a biblical reference. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Daniel_Webster_as_a_Jurist/1d8TAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 …pic.twitter.com/Te4OxmPfYd
Show this thread -
In short, it's not entirely clear where Frankfurter got it, but it may have been a play on the phrase in the Nardone briefs or else a biblical reference. Either way it stuck, and it is used all the time today in discussions of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. /end
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Are you saying that Hegseth forgot to tell us about those salt of the earth folk in diners who discuss the exclusionary rules under the 4th Amendment when they take a break for debating 10th Amendment jurisprudence?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.