What is the constitutional duty of a trial court to grant a suppression of evidence motion?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Phillips, 111 Cal.App.3d 761, 168 Cal.Rptr. 863 (Cal. App. 1980):
It is my view that the evidence which defendant sought to suppress was evidence which falls under the category of fruit of the poisonous tree of a constitutionally impermissible detention. (See Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441.) It was the constitutional duty of the trial court, therefore, to grant defendant's suppression-of-evidence motion rather than to deny it.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
Does a court's specification of reasons for granting a motion for a new trial, which does not state any grounds or reasons for the decision to grant the motion, constitute untimely and void? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial have to be granted because the trial court refused to grant a motion to sever? (California, United States of America)
What are the rules applicable to appeal from an order of the trial court granting a motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, does the court have to accept the findings of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to award a motion for damages even if the trial judge was aware of the fact that the motion was being brought before the court? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, does the court defer to the factual findings of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
