Doesn’t matter what Stone did or didn’t do.
That jury was tainted.
The verdict should be tossed.
There is a legal term called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” If the evidence, or tree, is tainted, then anything gained from the evidence — the fruit — is tainted as well.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.
History:
The doctrine underlying the name was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3][4] The term’s first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).[citation needed]
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[5] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine.
The testimony of a witness who is discovered through illegal means would not necessarily be excluded, however, due to the “attenuation doctrine”[6], which allows certain evidence or testimony to be admitted in court if the link between the illegal police conduct and the resulting evidence or testimony is sufficiently attenuated
For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent intervening factor to sufficiently “attenuate” the connection between the government’s illegal discovery of the witness and the witness’s voluntary testimony itself. (United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial.[1] Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.[2]
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions.[citation needed] The tainted evidence is admissible if:
It was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
It would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
The chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
the search warrant was not found to be valid based on probable cause, but was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).
This doctrine was also used by the European Court of Human Rights in Gäfgen v. Germany.[citation needed] In certain cases continental European countries have similar laws (e.g. in cases of torture), while the doctrine itself is generally not known.[citation needed] Illegally obtained evidence is used by the courts to ensure that the judgment is factually correct, however the person obtaining the illegal evidence typically faces independent consequences.
That was the phrase i have been trying to think of.
..almost everything they have on Trump, and Trump associates, is evidence obtained from the fruit of the poisonous tree?
Made up Dossier and illegally obtain FISA ..most of the questions that became process crimes all stem from the same poisonous tree?
+1!