California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Soto, 157 Cal.App.3d 694, 204 Cal.Rptr. 204 (Cal. App. 1984):
The rebar, however, was properly admitted, as it was not a product of the statements elicited after defendant's requests were made. Defendant had already given the rebar's rough location in the prior dream sequence, and his subsequent affirmation of the location was essentially repetitive. Furthermore, defendant's later on-the-scene assistance was apparently unnecessary to the rebar's recovery. An officer found it 50 yards away from the location defendant had described, while defendant was looking with other officers elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the rebar was not the fruit of the unlawfully obtained statements. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441.)
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.