[Taipei]

That’s not how “fruit of the poisonous tree” works. Only Carter Page could reasonably claim this defence as it applies specifically to 4th Amendment rights, which are non-transferrable.

EG: If an unreliable informant gives the FBI information that you’re a drug dealer, the FBI gets a warrant, finds drugs in your house and arrests you, the drugs in your house could not be used against YOU in a court of law.

However, if you give the FBI information about your supplier, or if there are clues - say a letter with a return address on it - which are seized which lead to the arrest of your supplier this person would NOT be able to claim the fruit of the poisoned tree defence.

[palmer]

I don't think your idea or your example are correct. The 4th amendment protects everyone. It doesn't need to be "transferred" from one target to an incidental target. If either target is indicted with illegally gathered evidence then that evidence will be tossed. The indictment will be tossed if there is no other evidence.

Here's a simple counterexample: the cops pull over a driver for failure to go above the speed limit or other capricious grounds. A search of the car reveals hidden drugs but the charge is dropped due to the bad stop. The passenger is also found to possess drugs. The charges against the passenger are also dropped.

[Gargantua]

The law is clear. If the initial "discovery" mechanism is proven to be "poisoned," any and all "fruit" derived from that "tree" is considered inadmissable. You cannot select which thus-implicated defendants are absolved and which are not.

Poisoned fruit is poisoned fruit, no matter whose ox is healed.

I can just see a judge saying, "Well, this bad evidence must be thrown out, and it clearly exonerates Carter Page, but we'll use it anyway against Manifort and Trump..."

C'mon, man. Law is law. Finito.

Think.