The big controversy behind the "fruit of the forbidden tree" doctrine is whether or not legally damning evidence obtained illegally should be admissible in court. The idea - also known as evidence exclusion law - centers on the belief that if the defendant is convicted using evidence from "unethical/illegal" sources, without the judge's knowledge, the conviction should be overturned when the its origin comes to light. This issue resurfaced recently after whistleblower 3838, the anonymous lawyer for several underworld criminals, including Tony “Fat Tony” Mokbel, provided personal and accusatory information to Victorian police. This was in clear violation of the legally binding attorney-client privilege contract – making the evidence provided, which ultimately convicted his clients, obtained illegally and in clear violation of the law of exclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayEssentially, the law of exclusion prevents the admission of evidence acquired through violation of the offender's constitutional rights. In America, it falls under the Fourth Amendment, which is found under the illegal searches and seizures section. The rule was introduced in America in 1914, during Weeks v. United States. The rule was only applied in Australia on 12 February 2014 in the case of Smith v The State of Western Australia, where a note was discovered detailing the coercion of a jury member to agree with the others and rule against the defendant . While this is not directly related to the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, it falls within the guidelines of the jury tampering exclusionary rule. Evidence has never been excluded from the Australian legal system, no matter how contaminated. During the 104 years of the exclusionary law being applied to criminal convictions in the United States, no innocent person has been harmed. In order for the exclusionary rule to be issued, there must be tangible evidence against the accused. This means that unless evidence is produced, those who had no role in the crime remain completely unaffected. On the other hand, this means that the law only targets real criminals. If a police officer were to break down a door after hearing/seeing dangerous situations on private property and filming a murder/robbery/assault with his body cam, this evidence becomes useless, as the police did not have a warrant. The likelihood is that the perpetrator in this scenario would be successfully charged, but the key, damning piece of evidence – the body cam footage – would be hidden. Is prioritizing the criminal's constitutional rights over the pursuit of justice really what the legal system is all about? Many argue that this is exactly what the legal system aims to do: to also help equalize the balance between government and citizens. While this may indeed be correct, the exclusion of some evidence before trial paints the offender in an innocent light, realizing the fundamental right to deserve a fair and impartial trial and maintaining the belief that he or she is innocent until proven guilty. the exclusionary rule applied to evidence occurred in 1914 in the United States Supreme Court in Weeks vs. The United States. Since then, 19 cases have been brought to the Supreme Court resulting in the application of the exclusionary rule. However, the rule has been used hundreds of times in smaller county courts. The most recent was Gilton v. StatesUnited, in which Antonio Gilton killed his teenage sister's pimp. The Ninth Circuit, more commonly referred to as a court of appeals, allowed federal prosecutors in charge of the case to resurface and use cell phone location history against Gilton. This is an example of a scenario where illegally received evidence was produced as it is the only evidence that places Gilton at the scene of the murder. The three qualities of a functioning legal system are access, i.e. the ability to receive and use lawyers and legal assistance provided by the State, equality, i.e. everyone is treated equally, regardless of race, age, gender or by financial status and, finally, equity. the element that most accurately concerns this example. If the American justice system is willing to include evidence that suits its interests, why should it be able to choose what it includes in a hearing? Once one of the three elements is compromised, the others collapse – creating an unjust society – something America has achieved on a magnificent scale. This inclusion of cell phone information is yet another display of authoritative superiority as it violates one of the most significant concepts of the Fourth Amendment: the exclusionary rule. Having another useless and fragile rule only grants more power to the executive branch of the country, further upsetting the people-government conflict and hindering the political stability of the three branches of government: judicial, executive and legislative. Now, the most interesting part of this speech - The story of witness X, lawyer For obvious security reasons, however, many of my family friends in the legal industry can confirm that the entire legal community knows who he is - and underworld criminals almost certainly know the identity of their lawyer. For today's purposes, I will refer to her as I38. His most infamous client was perhaps Tony Mokbel, responsible for the largest-ever ecstasy import attempt. Fortunately, in 2007 the drugs were discovered hidden inside tomato cans, weighing a total of 4.4 tonnes. In 2012, Mokbel was sentenced by the High Court of Australia to 30 years, with a minimum of 22 years imprisonment. Since all lawyers have an obligation to protect the interests of their clients, providing incriminating evidence was grossly negligent. Because her clients trusted her, I38 ​​was aware of many impending crimes, so she began providing information to the Vic police so that she would not be seen as complicit in the crimes. Her record as an informant began in 2003, having only been registered as an official Vic police informant in 2005. Because of her right to anonymity, the judges using her information to prosecute the prosecution did not know she was a lawyer. Between 2005 and 2009 his information led to 380 arrests. He also helped by introducing his clients to undercover police as trusted friends/family. In 2010, I38 ​​was compensated $2.88 million for his role in the convictions. Because of her compromising position as both a lawyer and an informant, her clients are liable to seek judicial review on the basis that they have been wrongly convicted. While these criminals are clearly guilty - with myriad documents, images and audio clips implicated, there is still a great possibility that these hardened criminals and proper gangsters will be released onto the streets of Victoria by 2020 - all 380 of them. It's quite interesting that..