谁能告诉我有关联邦证据法的米兰达规则或者毒树之果方面的资料？英文的最好阿！
作者&投稿：牢齿 （若有异议请与网页底部的电邮联系）
additional information is required_有道翻译
翻译结果：
需要额外的信息
to open your selling on amazon pa_有道翻译
翻译结果：
打开你的销售在
刑事诉讼法第二百五十三条规定：罪犯被交付执行刑罚的时候，应当由交付执行的人民法院在判决生效后十日以bai将有关的法律文书送达公安机关、监狱或者其他执行机关。
对被判处死刑缓期二年执行、无期徒刑、有期徒刑的罪犯，由公安机关依法将该罪犯送交监狱执行刑罚。对被判处有期徒刑的罪犯，在被交付执行刑罚前，剩余刑期在三个月以下的，由看守所代为执行。对被判处拘役的罪犯，由公安机关执行。
Miranda rule - the rule that police (when interrogating you after an arrest) are obliged to warn you that anything you say may be used as evidence and to read you your constitutional rights (the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent until advised by a lawyer)
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that Miranda warnings are constitutionally required because of a 1966 case called Miranda v. Arizona. When a person is in custody, some version of the Miranda rights, such as the following, is read to the individual before questioning: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning."
The Miranda rule was developed to protect the individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Many people feel obligated to respond to police questioning. The Miranda warning ensures that people in custody realize they do not have to talk to the police and that they have the right to the presence of an attorney.
If the Miranda warning is not given before questioning, or if police continue to question a suspect after he or she indicates in any manner a desire to consult with an attorney before speaking, statements by the suspect generally are inadmissible. However, it may be difficult for your attorney to suppress your statement or confession in court.
The best rule is to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. Insist on it.
Meaning:
The rule that police (when interrogating you after an arrest) are obliged to warn you that anything you say may be used as evidence and to read you your constitutional rights (the right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent until advised by a lawyer)
Classified under:
Nouns denoting communicative processes and contents
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
You've probably heard above lots of times on TV crime shows.Yeah,it is the Miranda Warning,named after a famous case involving a suspect named Miranda.
While the Miranda warnings are considered a cornerstone of US's civil liberties, the person after whom they were named was hardly someone most people would consider a hero. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, an eighth-grade dropout with a criminal record, had been picked up by Phoenix police and accused of raping and kidnapping a mildly retarded 18-year-old woman. After two hours in a police interrogation room Miranda signed a written confession, but he apparently never was told that he had the right to remain silent, to have a lawyer, and to be protected against self-incrimination.
Despite his lawyer's objections, the confession was presented as evidence at Miranda's trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. His appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was joined with three other similar cases. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights.
That ruling offered only temporary reprieve to Miranda. He was retried. The second time round the prosecutors couldn't use the confession, but they did have additional evidence from a former girlfriend of Miranda's who testified that he had told her about the kidnapping and rape. He was convicted again and served 11 years before being paroled in 1972. He was arrested and returned to prison several times after.
Miranda died in 1976 at age 34 after being stabbed during an argument in a bar. The police arrested a suspect who chose to remain silent after being read his rights. The suspect was released and no one was ever charged with the killing.
毒树之果
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.
Assume that a police officer searches the automobile of a person stopped for a minor traffic violation. This violation is the only reason the officer conducts the search; nothing indicates that the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and no other circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime. This is an unreasonable search under the FOURTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution.
Assume further that the officer finds a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. The driver is subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and chooses to go to trial. The marijuana evidence culled from this search is excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, and the criminal charges are dropped for lack of evidence.
Also suppose that before the original charges are dismissed, the police officers ask a magistrate or judge for a warrant to search the home of the driver. The only evidence used as a basis, or PROBABLE CAUSE, for the warrant is the small amount of marijuana found in the vehicle search. The magistrate, unaware that the marijuana was uncovered in an illegal search, approves the warrant for the home search.
The officers search the driver's home and find a lawn mower stolen from a local park facility. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the lawn mower must be excluded from any trial on theft charges because the search of the house was based on evidence gathered in a previous illegal search.
The term fruit of the poisonous tree was first used in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939).
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was first held applicable to Fourth Amendment violations in the landmark case Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963). The Court in Wong Sun also set forth the test for determining how closely derivative evidence must be related to illegally obtained evidence to warrant exclusion.
The same morning, Yee and Toy were taken to the office of the Bureau of Narcotics. While in custody there, Yee stated that he had gotten the heroin about four days earlier from Toy and another person he knew as "Sea Dog." The agents then asked Toy about "Sea Dog," and Toy identified "Sea Dog" as Wong Sun. Some of the agents took Toy to Sun's neighborhood, where Toy pointed out Sun's house. The agents walked past Sun's wife and arrested Sun, who had been sleeping in his bedroom. A search of the premises turned up no illegal drugs.
The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.
Assume that a police officer searches the automobile of a person stopped for a minor traffic violation. This violation is the only reason the officer conducts the search; nothing indicates that the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and no other circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime. This is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Assume further that the officer finds a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. The driver is subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and chooses to go to trial. The marijuana evidence culled from this search is excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, and the criminal charges are dropped for lack of evidence.
Also suppose that before the original charges are dismissed, the police officers ask a magistrate or judge for a warrant to search the home of the driver. The only evidence used as a basis, or Probable Cause, for the warrant is the small amount of marijuana found in the vehicle search. The magistrate, unaware that the marijuana was uncovered in an illegal search, approves the warrant for the home search.
The officers search the driver's home and find a lawn mower stolen from a local park facility. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the lawn mower must be excluded from any trial on theft charges because the search of the house was based on evidence gathered in a previous illegal search.
The Supreme Court first hinted at the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182, 64 L. Ed. 319 (1920). In Silverthorne, defendant Frederick W. Silverthorne was arrested on suspicion of federal violations in connection with his lumber business. Government agents then conducted a warrantless, illegal search of the Silver-thorne offices. Based on the evidence discovered in the search, the prosecution requested more documents, and the court ordered Silverthorne to produce the documents. Silverthorne refused and was jailed for Contempt of court.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the contempt judgment. In its argument to the High Court, the government conceded that the search was illegal and that the prosecution was not entitled to keep the documents obtained in it. However, the government held that it was entitled to copy the documents and use knowledge gained from the documents for future prosecution. The Court rejected this argument. According to the Court, "[T]he essence of forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that … it shall not be used at all." Silverthorne concerned only evidence gained in the first illegal search or seizure, but the wording of the opinion paved the way for the exclusion of evidence gained in sub-sequent searches and seizures.
The term fruit of the poisonous tree was first used in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939). In Nardone, Frank C. Nardone appealed his convictions for Smuggling and concealing alcohol and for conspiracy to do the same. In an earlier decision, the High Court had ruled that an interception of Nardone's telephone conversations by government agents violated the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.A. § 605). The issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow Nardone's lawyer to question the prosecution on whether, and in what way, it had used information obtained in the illegal wire tapping.
In reversing Nardone's convictions, the Court stated that once a defendant has established that evidence was illegally seized, the trial court "must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree." The Nardone opinion established that evidence obtained in violation of a statute was subject to exclusion if it was obtained in violation of a statutory right.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was first held applicable to Fourth Amendment violations in the landmark case Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963). The Court in Wong Sun also set forth the test for determining how closely derivative evidence must be related to illegally obtained evidence to warrant exclusion.
In Wong Sun, a number of federal narcotics agents had arrested Hom Way in San Francisco at 2:00 A.M. on June 4, 1959, on suspicion of narcotics activity. Although the agents had been watching Way for six weeks, they did not have a warrant for his arrest. Way was searched, and the agents found heroin in his possession. After his arrest, Way stated that he had bought an ounce of heroin the night before from Blackie Toy, the proprietor of a laundry on Leavenworth Street.
Though Way had never been an informant for the police, the agents cruised Leavenworth Street. At 6:00 A.M., they stopped at Oye's Laundry. The rest of the agents remained out of sight while Agent Alton Wong rang the bell. When James Wah Toy answered the door, Wong said he was there for laundry and dry cleaning. Toy answered that he did not open until 8:00 A.M. and started to close the door. Wong then identified himself as a federal narcotics agent. Toy slammed the door and began to run down the hallway, through the laundry, and to his bedroom, where his wife and child were sleeping. Again without a warrant, Wong and the other agents broke open the door, followed Toy, and arrested him. A search of the premises uncovered no illegal drugs.
While Toy was in handcuffs, one of the agents told him that Way had said Toy sold Way narcotics. Toy denied selling narcotics, but then said he knew someone who had. When asked who, Toy answered that he knew the man only as "Johnny." Toy told the officers that "Johnny" lived on Eleventh Avenue, and then he described the house. Toy also volunteered that "Johnny" kept about an ounce of heroin in his bedroom, and that he and "Johnny" had smoked some heroin the night before.
The agents left and located the house on Eleventh Avenue. Without a search or an arrest warrant, they entered the home, went to the bedroom, and found Johnny Yee. After a "discussion" with the agents, Yee surrendered a little less than one ounce of heroin.
The same morning, Yee and Toy were taken to the office of the Bureau of Narcotics. While in custody there, Yee stated that he had gotten the heroin about four days earlier from Toy and another person he knew as "Sea Dog." The agents then asked Toy about "Sea Dog," and Toy identified "Sea Dog" as Wong Sun. Some of the agents took Toy to Sun's neighborhood, where Toy pointed out Sun's house. The agents walked past Sun's wife and arrested Sun, who had been sleeping in his bedroom. A search of the premises turned up no illegal drugs.
Toy and Yee were arraigned in federal court on June 4, 1959, and Sun was arraigned the next day. All were released without bail. A few days later, Toy, Yee, and Sun were interrogated separately at the Narcotics Bureau by Agent William Wong. Sun and Toy made written statements but refused to sign them.
Sun and Toy were tried jointly on charges of transporting and concealing narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 174. Way did not testify at the trial. The government offered Yee as its principal witness, but Yee recanted his statement to Agent William Wong and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against Self-Incrimination. With only four items in evidence, Sun and Toy were convicted by the court in a bench trial. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions (Wong Sun, 288 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1961)). Sun and Toy appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court accepted the case and reversed the convictions. The Court began its analysis by noting that the court of appeals had held that the arrests of both Sun and Toy were illegal. The question was whether the four items in evidence against Sun and Toy were admissible despite the illegality of the arrests. The four pieces of evidence were the oral statements made by Toy in his bedroom at the time of his arrest, the heroin surrendered to the agents by Yee, Toy's unsigned statement to Agent William Wong, and Sun's unsigned statement to Agent William Wong.
The government submitted several theories to support the proposition that the statements made by Toy in his bedroom were properly admitted at trial. The Court rejected all the arguments. According to the Court, the arrest was illegal because the agents had no evidence supporting it other than the word of Way, an arrestee who had never been an informer for law enforcement. The officers did not even know whether Toy was the person they were looking for. Furthermore, Toy's flight did not give the officers probable cause to arrest Toy: Agent Alton Wong had first posed as a customer, and this made Toy's flight ambiguous and not necessarily the product of a guilty mind. Thus, under the exclusionary rule, the oral statements made by Toy in his bedroom should not have been allowed at trial.
The Court then turned to the actual drug evidence seized from Yee. The Court, in deference to Nardone, stated, "We need not hold that all evidence is 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'" Instead, the question in such a situation was "'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence … has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'"
According to the Court, the narcotics in Wong Sun were indeed "come at" by use of Toy's statements. Toy's statements were, in fact, the only evidence used to justify entrance to Yee's bedroom. Since the statements by Toy were inadmissible, the narcotics in Yee's possession were also inadmissible, as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court went on to hold that Sun's written statements about Toy should also have been excluded as Hearsay, and the Court ultimately overturned Toy's conviction.
The Court did not reverse Sun's conviction. The heroin in Yee's possession was admissible at trial, as was Sun's own statement. According to the Court, "The exclusion of narcotics as to Toy was required solely by their tainted relationship to information unlawfully obtained from Toy, and not by any official impropriety connected with their surrender by Yee." The Court did, however, grant Sun a new trial, because it was unable to conclude that Toy's statements, erroneously admitted at trial as evidence against Sun, had not affected the verdict. The Court advised that on remand and in similar cases, "particular care ought to be taken … when the crucial element of the accused's possession is proved solely by his own admissions."
In determining whether evidence is fruit of a poisonous tree, the trial court judge must examine all the facts surrounding the initial seizure of evidence and the subsequent gathering of evidence. This determination is usually made by the judge in a suppression hearing held before trial. In this hearing, the judge must first determine that an illegal search or seizure occurred and then decide whether the evidence was obtained as a result of the illegal search or
这个也没写下，给地址吧：有个案例分析
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+Poisonous+Tree
还有wikipedia上面的，写不下了
联邦调查局有没有脱离过政治?
胡佛没有立即接受他的提议。相反，据报道，当时的调查局助理局长告诉美国总检察长斯通，他有几个条件，“调查局必须脱离政治，不能成为政治黑客的通缉犯。任命必须以业绩为基础。第二，晋升将在证明能力的基础上进行，该局将只对司法部长负责，“胡佛说，斯通回答说，“在任何其他条件下我都不会给你。
烦请各位前辈告诉我贸易术语都有哪些?是什么意思
Form A ---产地证(贸易公司) F\/F 货运代理 Freight Forwarder FAK 各种货品 Freight All Kind FAS 装运港船边交货 Free Alongside Ship Feeder Vessel\/Lighter 驳船航次 FEU 40‘柜型 Forty-Foot Equivalent Unit 40’ FMC 联邦海事委员会 Federal Maritime Commission FIO是FREE IN AND OUT的意思,指船公司不...
若从澳大利亚联邦银行汇款到中国的招商银行,需要知道招商银行的哪些信息...
收款人无需到我行填写《涉外收入申报单》，我行在了解款项资金性质为经常项目下非经营性外汇，在账号户名一致的前提下，可直接解付至个人外汇储蓄账户。深圳地区无论金额大小都需要申报。假如申报入账后，澳大利亚元不一定可以取澳大利亚元现金，需要看您所在地是否可以取该币种的外币，如取不了，只能是结汇...
一般哪些原因会成为签证官觉得我有移民倾向而拒签的
比如，为什么选择学习的专业，为什么选择这个学校，学校的课程跟以后的计划有什么关系……他们希望从这些问题中能判断出学生是否有移民倾向。 有时候，很多学生的回答听起来不像是他们自己的理想，因为每个学生说的话都是一样的，非常的一致，签证官希望申请者用自己的话，表达自己真正的想法。联邦签证网孙...
...SAT、IGCSE、A-level。。。有没有人能告诉我这些词都是什么意思呢...
其证书，只要是说英文的国家地区均会得到承认， 该考试相当于我们理解的“SSAT”，唯一不同的是：若同学想申请英国名校剑桥，牛津大学等相近英系大学，此考试成绩是申请的重要参考之一。 因中英教育体系的不同，高中的GPA成绩换算，英国无标准，不能准确了解学员的智力和学术能力，所以该考试成绩很有必要...
你好!我是今年3月份开始办理的加拿大雇主担保移民,7月1号开始的新证...
要看你的PNP提名批文是什么时候获得的，如果是在7月1日后申请获得的批文，那就要按照新政策来处理了
美国访友B2签证问题,急急急!!!
建议：如果只是打算去短期探望一下女朋友，可以申请B2签证，带上所有的财力证明文件，认真准备。没有任何必要提到结婚的事情。这个计划本身属于你个人的生活事务，对你申请B2签证不会有任何积极的作用。另外，也建议你等到女朋友下一次假期回国的时候在中国一起领取结婚证。因为两个中国公民在美国是无法直接...
谁有关于加拿大的更多信息?如风景,习俗等.
我也去答题访问个人页 关注 展开全部 加拿大位于北美洲北部,东邻大西洋,西濒太平洋。国土总面积为...【司法机构】 加拿大设联邦、省和地方(一般指市)三级法院。联邦法院一般受理财政、海事和有关经济方面...更有甚者,如果你不告诉司机你要下车,在此站如果也没有其他人要上下车,车可能不停,所以你要在下车...
有谁能告诉我尽可能多的国家英文三个字母的简称,比如:中国(CHN)等等...
企业 媒体 政府 其他组织 商城 手机答题 我的 有谁能告诉我尽可能多的国家英文三个字母的简称,比如:中国(CHN)等等。。。越多越好 4个...科摩罗 Comoros KM 科摩罗伊斯兰联邦共和国 Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros 科特迪瓦 Cote dIvoire CI 科特迪瓦共和国 Republic of Cote dIvoire ...
谁能告诉我美国the Office of the Inspector General(OIG)是什么机构...
美国国会相信,通过在联邦政府主要部门设立独立的监察长办公室,能够保证纳税人钱的使用更为谨慎、记录更加准确,使政府有能力揭露并杜绝舞弊、浪费和滥用行为,从而提升公众对政府的信任。 任务和目标 劳工部监察长办公室通过开展有关审计、调查和评估,促进本部门项目和业务活动的经济、效率和效果,为美国劳工和广大纳税人...
柴牲胃刻： ——米兰达诉亚利桑那州案 1963年3月3日深夜,一位在美国亚利桑那州凤凰城某影院工作的女孩(18岁)下班回家时,一辆汽车突然停在她面前.一名男子从车里钻出来...
洪洞县15693733820： 从证据法的角度看米兰达诉亚利桑那州案 - ？
柴牲胃刻： 美国以案例方式确立各种非法证据排除的方式.在美国所谓的证据排除,是按照下列的程序进行的:1、非法证据排除规则不适用于大陪审团审理 在美国联邦诉讼中还保留了大陪审团制度,其主要功能在于:⑴审查证据,以决定证据的充足程度...
洪洞县15693733820： 基督教和天主教的区别 - ？
柴牲胃刻： 天主教对马利亚的看法: 1. 她是神之母 2. 她是无罪的,所以能生下无罪的主 3. 她只生了耶稣 4. 她是中保,因她是蒙恩的女子 圣经是将她抬得很高 向她祷告比向耶稣祷告更好,因为耶稣 、天...
洪洞县15693733820： 新入手的.求评价.这是个什么狗.有懂的请告诉我.谢谢.就20分全给了.谢谢了. - ？
柴牲胃刻： 从图片上看应该是格力犬,白花格力犬,想来是用来抓兔子用的吧.先评价图片上的狗狗,总体来说不错,身形匀称,头部中规中矩,应该是...
洪洞县15693733820： 什么叫快婿? - ？
柴牲胃刻： 乘龙快婿 ( chéng lóng kuài xù ) 【解释】 乘龙:好比乘坐于龙上得道成仙;快婿:称意的女婿.才貌双全的女婿. 【出处】 晋·张方《楚国先贤传》:“时人谓桓叔元两女俱乘龙,言得婿如龙也. 【...
洪洞县15693733820： “www”最初在哪个实验室开发出来的? - ？
柴牲胃刻： CERN [简明英汉词典]abbr.European laboratory for particle physics,欧洲粒子物理研究所?Internet是怎样诞生的 与很多人的想象相反,Internet并非某一完美计划的结果,Interne...
洪洞县15693733820： 一叶秋文学社? - ？
柴牲胃刻： 以社规规则整个一叶秋社团成员的行为规范;以思想指导整个一叶秋社团成员的思想风气.社规与思想二者相互相成,令一叶秋文学社永久的处于一个相对安静,详和的环境中.(一叶秋文学社社规与一叶秋文学社...
洪洞县15693733820： 基督教与佛教有什么差异 ？
柴牲胃刻： 好像大差不差. 更早一轮的宗教好像都是用来维系社会的.比较正式的比如西方的埃及、两河地区,讲究靠神权维系政权.中国地区这边没这么露骨,但是祖先崇拜本身也是在说某些人从出身上就与众不同,更能带领大家. 后来的一轮宗教就是基督教和比如佛教之类,讲究的都是人反思自己在社会中的角色和如何认识世界、人生等等比较玄乎的概念.所以二者大致结构上是异曲同工的. 当然后来基督教在西方的欧洲地区掌握了政权,佛教则没有,所以结果就是基督教可以搞教义统一,而佛教这边最多来一出南北分家之类.
