Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fruit of the Poison Tree Doctrine in U.S. Criminal Proceedings and Regulations on the Exclusion of Evidence in Vietnamese Criminal Proceedings

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study contrasts the evidence exclusion principles within the adversarial legal system of the United States, particularly the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, with the inquisitorial system of Vietnam. The U.S. model, emphasizing the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence to protect the presumption of innocence and ensure fair trials, relies on the Fourth Amendment to prevent police misconduct. Conversely, Vietnam, with its focus on uncovering the truth, has started to adopt adversarial elements, including evidence exclusion, to align with international standards and enhance human rights protections within its criminal justice system. The research examines the application of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine in the U.S. and its implications for Vietnamese legal reforms, especially the proposed amendments to Article 87 of Vietnam's Criminal Procedure Code. These reforms aim to exclude unlawfully obtained evidence while allowing for the use of evidence collected independently from illegal actions. Highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects procedural rights and promotes justice, the study advocates for comprehensive legal reforms in Vietnam. It suggests amendments to refine evidence exclusion principles, ensuring they reflect both the Vietnamese context and the progressive features of U.S. criminal justice practices, thereby enhancing the fairness and integrity of criminal proceedings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Rule 402 “Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court” [14].

  2. See Rule 403 “Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” [14]

  3. Fourteenth Amendment: “Civil War Amendment to the Constitution in that it was ratified after the Civil War to protect all person from state laws that attempt to deprive them of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law, or attempt to deny them of equal protection of the law. The Amendment is used to extend the protection of almost all of the provision of the Bill of Rights to citizens of every state”, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does-0.

  4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  5. Weeks v. United States “Private letters of the defendant were illegally seized by federal officers and were admitted in evidence against him in a subsequent federal prosecution. On appeal from the defendant's conviction, the Court concluded that if the protections of the Fourth Amendment were to be meaningful, evidence seized in violation of them must be inadmissible in prosecutions against the defendant” [44].

  6. Nardone v. United States “In a prosecution in a federal court, evidence procured by tapping wires in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 is inadmissible. This applies not only to the intercepted conversations themselves but also, by implication, to evidence procured through the use of knowledge gained from such conversations. P. 308 U. S. 339”[30].

  7. Fourteenth Amendment: Civil War Amendment to the Constitution in that it was ratified after the Civil War to protect all person from state laws that attempt to deprive them of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law, or attempt to deny them of equal protection of the law. The Amendment is used to extend the protection of almost all of the provision of the Bill of Rights to citizens of every state.

  8. See Mapp v. Ohio [27]

  9. Stamper v. State [38].

  10. Rohith V. Srinivas [35] “The exclusionary rule … functions as a sort of restitution to the extent that it forces the executive to disgorge the benefit that it gained by violating the Constitution.”); William C. Heffernan [42] “The disgorgement framework does not capture all features of exclusion. It does, however, capture those that are most important.”); Jeffrey Standen [17] “Apart from its constitutional status, the exclusionary rule is nothing more than an instance of the common law remedy of restitution.”.

  11. As mentioned, the United States does not trust civil remedies caused by state violations to have the effect of preventing further violations. Therefore, the more general and deterrent a policy based on exclusionary principles, the more likely it is to limit violations. This view of the United States is different from that of many countries around the world.

  12. See Article 285 [6].

  13. See Article 375 [6].

  14. Clause 1, Article 198 [5].

  15. Decision 1172/QD-TTg [10]; Decision No. 264/QD-VKSTC. [11]; Joint Circular No. 03/2018/TTLT-BCA-VKSNDTC-TANDTC-BQP [19] “No later than January 1, 2020, uniformly record audio or video with sound of the interrogation of the accused on nationwide scope”.

  16. This viewpoint is a summary of interview results for Investigators working at the Police Investigation Agency in Ho Chi Minh City.

  17. Investigation conclusion [16].

  18. Clause 3, Article 183 [5].

  19. See Nix v. Williams [32].

  20. See Rochin v. California [36].

References

  1. Amsterdam. 1964. Search Seizure, and Section 2255: A Comment, 112 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 378, 388–89. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol112/iss3/2.

  2. Barrett. 1955. Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Searches-A Comment on People vs. Cahan, California Law Review, Vol 43 P. 565, 579.

  3. Bui Thi Thanh Thuy. 2019. Without audio or video recording equipment, interrogation is not allowed; https://www.tapchitoaan.vn/tapchi/public/index.php/khong-co-thiet-bi-ghi-am-ghi-hinh-thi-khong-duoc-hoi-cung.

  4. Christopher Slobogin. 2013. A Comparative Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Cases, Vanderbilt Public Law Review, P.13–21. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2247746.

  5. Criminal Procedure Code 2015, amended and supplemented in 2021. https://english.luatvietnam.vn.

  6. Criminal Law’ Viet Nam Code 2015, amended and supplemented in 2017. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Trach-nhiem-hinh-su/Bo-luat-hinh-su-2015-296661.aspx.

  7. Cu Hien. 2020. The killing of a duck thief: Mr. Sau did not commit a crime; Ho Chi Minh City Law Newspaper;https://plo.vn/phap-luat/vu-chem-nguoi-trom-vit-ong-sau-khong-pham-toi-916525.html.

  8. Carter v Beto (1970, CA5 Tex) 426 F2d 242, Accessed February 19, 2023. https://casetext.com/case/carter-v-beto.

  9. Daniel, Yeager. 2024. A History of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree (1916–1942). Howard Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4385356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Decision 1172/QD-TTg.September 11. 2019. The Government approving the project on facilities, apparatus, staff, and specific roadmap for implementing audio or video recording of work to interrogate the suspect according to the provisions of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code.

  11. Decision No. 264/QD-VKSTC. July 21. 2020. On promulgating the Temporary Procedures for Supervising Audio Recording or Video Recording with Sound When Interrogating the Defendant and Taking Testimonies During the Prosecution Phase, invetigation and prosecution.

  12. Dinh The Hung. 2020. On fair proceedings in Vietnamese criminal proceedings, Court Journal, https://tapchitoaan.vn/ve-to-tung-cong-bang-trong-to-tung-hinh-su-Viet-nam.

  13. Van Duong, Do. 2006. Evidence and Proof in Criminal Cases. Ha Noi: Justice Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Federal Rules of Evidence U.S(1975), edition 2024, United States. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol115/iss7/6/.

  15. Invoked in case law Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/165/.

  16. Investigation conclusion No. 09/KLĐT-PC44 dated November 27, 2015 of the Police Department of Binh Thuan Province.

  17. Jeffrey, Standen. 2000. The Exclusionary Rule and Damages: An Economic Comparison of Private Remedies for Unconstitutional Police Conduct. 2000 BYU Law Review. 1443: 1443.

    Google Scholar 

  18. John H. Langbein. 1977. Comparative Criminal Procedure: Germany, West Group, P.58.

  19. Joint Circular No. 03/2018/TTLT-BCA-VKSNDTC-TANDTC-BQP, February 1, 2018, of The Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Supreme People's Court, and the Ministry of National Defense provide guidance on the order and procedures for making audio or video recordings with sound; Use, preserve, and store audio or video recording results during the investigation, prosecution, or trial.

  20. Le Huynh Tan Duy. 2023. Comparison of laws on evidence and proof in criminal proceedings in the United States and Vietnam, Proceedings of the scientific conference on development trends of Vietnamese law on evidence, proof in Criminal Procedure, Hanoi Law of University.

  21. Le Xuan Quang. 2022. Difficulties and problems when implementing regulations on audio and video recording during interrogation of the accused. https://vksnd.gialai.gov.vn/Nghien-cuu-Trao-doi/kho-khan-vuong-mac-khi-thuc-hien-quy-dinh-ghi-am-ghi-hinh-trong-hoi-cung-bi-can-1901.html.

  22. Machen. 1950. The law of search and seizure, Law and Aministration series, 10. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/law-search-and-seizure-0.

  23. John MacArthur Maguire. 1959. Evidence of Guilt: Restriction Upon Its Discovery or Compulsory Disclosure.https://books.google.com.vn/books/about/Evidence_of_Guilt.html?id=lrALAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y.

  24. John MacArthur Maguire. 1964. How to Unpoison the Frit -The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Ride, 55 3. Crim. L., C. & PS 307.

  25. Lemley, Mark A. 2017. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in IP Law. 103 Iowa Law Review 103: 245.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mai Thanh Hieu. 2023. Proving according to the principle of presumption of innocence in French and Vietnamese criminal procedure law, Proceedings of the scientific conference on development trends of Vietnamese law on evidence and evidence in Criminal Procedure, Hanoi Law of University.

  27. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S., 656. 1961. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/.

  28. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436. 1966. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/.

  29. Damaska, Mirjan. 1973. Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121 (3): 76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nardone v. United States, 308 US 338. 1939. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/308/338/.

  31. Nguyen Duc Hung. 2022. Issues of audio and video recording of interrogation of the accused. https://lsvn.vn/van-de-ghi-am-ghi-hinh-viec-hoi-cung-bi-can1650557143.html.

  32. Nix v. Williams, 467 US 431. 1984. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/431.

  33. Ofer Malcai, Ronit Levine-Schnur. 2017. When Procedure Takes Priority: A Theoretical Evaluation of The Contemporary Trends in Criminal Procedure and Evidence Law, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 30, 2017. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2893135.

  34. Phan Thanh Dong. 2023. Evaluating the expert's assessment conclusions according to the provisions of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code, Journal of Legal Democracy. https://danchuphapluat.vn/danh-gia-ket-luan-giam-dinh-cua-giam-dinh-vien-according-to-quy-dinh-cua-bo-luat-to-tung-hinh-su-nam-2015.

  35. Srinivas, Rohith V. 2012. The Exclusionary Rule as Fourth Amendment Judicial Review, 49 AMER. Criminal Law. Review. 179: 213.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 175, 172. 1954. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/165.

  37. Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 US 385. 1920. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/251/385/.

  38. Stamper v. State, 662 P.2d 82, 84 (Wyo. 1983). https://casetext.com/case/stamper-v-state-13.

  39. Tomlinson, Mapp v. Ohio at Large in the Fifty States, 1962 DUKE L.J. 319, 334–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1371095.

  40. Van Hoa, To., and Vo Thi Linh. 2018. Model of Adversarial Procedure and its Advantages. Disadvantages, Journal of Legislative Studies 10 (362): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  41. United States v. Leon, 468 US 897. 1984. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/897/.

  42. US CONST. Amend. V.

  43. Ky, Vo Minh, and Nguyen Phuong Anh. 2023. Doctrine of the poisonous tree in the Criminal Justice of the United States of America and Recommendations for VietNam. Legislative Studies. 477: 48.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383. 1914. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/.

  45. William C. Heffernan. 2000.The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Remedy, 88 GEO. L.J. 799, 850.

  46. Wong Sun v. United States. 1963. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/371/471/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Economics, Law and Government, University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

    Trinh Duy Thuyen

Authors
  1. Trinh Duy Thuyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trinh Duy Thuyen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thuyen, T.D. Fruit of the Poison Tree Doctrine in U.S. Criminal Proceedings and Regulations on the Exclusion of Evidence in Vietnamese Criminal Proceedings. Int J Semiot Law (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10129-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10129-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation