Wong Sun v. United States case brief summary
371 U.S. 471 (1963)
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court held that an out-of-court declaration made after an arrest may not be used at the trial against one of the declarant's partners in a crime unless the statement was made in furtherance of the criminal undertaking.
CONCLUSION
The convictions were vacated and petitioners were granted a new trial based on a chain of inferences indicating prejudicial error in that the trial court may have considered each petitioner's statement as corroboration of the other petitioner's guilt, thus violating the rule that a co-conspirator's hearsay statements were admissible against an accused only if made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
371 U.S. 471 (1963)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners challenged an order of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that affirmed
their convictions for fraudulent and knowing transportation and
concealment of illegally imported her*in in violation of the Federal
Narcotics Laws, 21 U.S.C.S. § 174.DISCUSSION
- Petitioners challenged an order that affirmed the judgments that convicted them of narcotics transportation and concealment after a bench trial.
- Petitioners argued that the evidence admitted at the trial was inadmissible as the fruits of unlawful arrests or searches.
- Petitioners were arrested after a suspect under surveillance was held with narcotics, and had led the federal agents to the first petitioner as his source.
- The challenged evidence included the her*in surrendered to the police and the statements made orally by the second petitioner in his bedroom at the time of his arrest, and a pretrial unsigned confessions of both petitioners.
- The appeals court held that the arrests were illegal for lack of probable cause, but that the challenged evidence was not fruit of the illegal arrests and therefore was admissible.
- Petitioners argued that even if their confessions were declarations against interest, they were not binding on the other petitioner.
On appeal, the court held that an out-of-court declaration made after an arrest may not be used at the trial against one of the declarant's partners in a crime unless the statement was made in furtherance of the criminal undertaking.
CONCLUSION
The convictions were vacated and petitioners were granted a new trial based on a chain of inferences indicating prejudicial error in that the trial court may have considered each petitioner's statement as corroboration of the other petitioner's guilt, thus violating the rule that a co-conspirator's hearsay statements were admissible against an accused only if made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
ReplyDeleteFACTS: Federal narcotics agents arrested Hom Way and found heroin in his possession. He said he had bought an ounce of heroin the night before from “Blackie Toy” who “operates a laundry on Leavenworth Street” (like a million other Chinese!). The agents went to a laundry operated by James Wah Toy. Toy answered the door and after police placed him under arrest, he said he hadn’t been selling narcotics, but knew of someone who had. No drugs were found, and nothing in the record establishes Blackie Toy and James Wah Toy as the same person. He made a statement describing a person named “Johnny” and where he lived. [Note: police lacked probable cause to believe they were the same person, and Hom Way was not an informant prior to his arrest, therefore the officers didn’t have reason to believe the information given was reliable.] The agents went to Johnny Yee and found heroin in his possession. He informed the agents that he had purchased the heroin from Toy and someone known as “Sea Dog” (Wong Sun). Wong Sun was arrested, but no narcotics were found in his possession. All of the suspects were brought in, arraigned and released. After their release, Wong Sun and James Wah Toy came back to give statements. (There is a factual connection b/w returning to the testify and the rest of the events.)
HELD: (1) Toy’s statement was product of his arrest w/o probable cause, and is therefore exluded. (2) The drugs taken from Yee’s house is excluded as to Toy because it was a “fruit of the poisonous tree”. Not excluded as to Wong Sun b/c the evidence must have a causal connection, not just a “but for” test. Sun had no expectation of privacy in Yee’s home, and therefore lacked standing to contest the use of the evidence. (3) Wong Sun’s statement is admissible b/c it was procured by a means that is distinguishable of the illegality (taint dissipated). (4) Statement by Toy can be used, but the corpus delecti Rule requires more then the confession of the individual to convict, therefore suit as to James Wah Toy was dismissed. (5) Narcotics recovered from Yee can be used against Wong Sun even though not against Toy because they are the fruit of Toy’s illegal arrest and not a fruit of any illegal arrest or violation of Wong Sun’s rights. (6) Toy’s statement inadmissible against Wong Sun for same reason as in 3) above where Wong Sun’s statement was inadmissible against Toy
RULE: The exclusionary prohibition extends to the direct and indirect products of invasions that violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. Exclusion applies to tangible and verbal evidence.