1. Criminal procedure. A hearing to determine whether evidence was obtained illegally, and if so, whether the evidence is admissible.
independent-basis doctrine – (1970) Criminal procedure. The rule that even if a witness’s identification o a criminal defendant was tainted by suggestiveness in a lineup, photo array, etc., the identification is nevertheless admissible in evidence if the prosecution presents corroborative evidence that is untainted.
fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine – evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”). — aka fruits doctrine.
- attenuation doctrine – an exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine whereby evidence obtained by illegal means may be admissible if the connection between the evidence an the illegal means is sufficiently remote: the Fourth Amendment violation and the obtaining of the evidence are not causally related.
- independent-source rule – an exception to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine whereby evidence obtained by illegal means is admissible if that evidence is also obtained by legal means unrelated to the original illegal conduct. — aka independent-source doctrine.
- good-faith exception – an exception to the exclusionary rule whereby evidence obtained under a warrant later found to be invalid (especially because its not supported by probable cause) is nonetheless admissible if officers reasonably relied on the notion the warrant was valid.
inevitable-discovery (and primary-evidence) rule – evidence obtained indirectly from an illegal search is admissible, and the illegality of the search is harmless, if the evidence would have been obtained nevertheless in the ordinary course of police work. — aka inevitable-discovery doctrine; inevitable-disclosure doctrine.
Dunaway hearing – (1983) Criminal procedure. A pretrial hearing to determine whether evidence was obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, specifically, whether a defendant’s statement, especially one to police, should be suppressed because it was obtained after an arrest without probable cause, the prosecution having the burden to show either probable cause or attenuation. * The name derives from Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2249 (1979). See PROBABLE CAUSE (1).
probable consequence – See CONSEQUENCE.
probable-desistance test – (1974) Criminal law. A common-law test for the crime of attempt, focusing on whether the defendant has exhibited dangerous behavior indicating a likelihood of committing the crime. See ATTEMPT (2).
probandum – n. A fact to be proved. See fact in issue under FACT. Pl. probanda.
“[I]n judicial proceedings, the probandum is always a known and definite thing, and thus it always furnishes a definite objective, towards which all evidentiary facts are supposed to point, and around which all evidence can be most usefully arranged. In the inquiries of natural science, the typical situation is that of a piece of evidence having multiple possibilities, with no fixed probandum. e.g., a chemist observes a peculiar and unusual reaction of hydrochloric acid on zinc; he asks himself what possible probandum this points to; there may be many; hence, he may perhaps prefer to classify from the point of view of the evidence, i.e. the reactions of the acid on zinc, iron, lead, etc. But the lawyer and the judge, having always a known definite probandum before them, find it more helpful to classify first from the point of view of the probandum. The probandum is like the magnet applied to a mass of iron filings; it immediately causes them all to align themselves in some position pointing to the probandum; and they can thus be readily sorted and classified.” John Henry Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof 5 27, at 51 (3d ed. 1937).
Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is compiled in accordance with Fair Use.
: Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6
: Ballantine’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations
Third Edition by James A. Ballantine (James Arthur 1871-1949). Edited by William S. Anderson. © 1969 by THE LAWYER’S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931
Back to Types of Pleas (criminal law)
Back to Criminal Law Self-Help
Like this website?
or donate via PayPal:
This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of
We look forward to hearing from you!