The big controversy behind the “fruits of the forbidden tree” doctrine is whether or not legally damning evidence – obtained illegally – should be admissible before the courts. The idea - also known as the law of exclusion of evidence - is based on the belief that if the accused is convicted using evidence from "unethical or illegal" sources, without the knowledge of the judge, the conviction should be annulled when its origin is revealed. This issue recently resurfaced after informant 3838 – the anonymous lawyer for numerous gang criminals, including Tony “Fat Tony” Mokbel, provided personal and incriminating information to Victoria Police. This was a blatant violation of the legally binding contract of professional secrecy – the evidence provided, which ultimately convicted his clients, was obtained illegally and in clear violation of the Exclusion Act. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayEssentially, the exclusionary statute prevents the admission of evidence acquired through the violation of the author's constitutional rights. In America, this falls under the Fourth Amendment – ​​found in the section on illegal searches and seizures. The rule was introduced in America in 1914, during the Weeks v. United States case. The rule was not applied in Australia until February 12, 2014 in the case of Smith v State of Western Australia - where a note was discovered detailing coercion of a jury member to be agreement with the others and decides against the accused. While this is not directly related to the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine, it does fall within the exclusionary rule guidelines for jury tampering. Evidence has never been excluded from the Australian legal system, no matter how flawed it may be. In the 104 years that criminal sentencing exclusion law has been in effect in the United States, not a single innocent person has been affected. For the exclusionary rule to be adopted, there must be tangible evidence against the defendant. This means that unless evidence has been fabricated, those who played no role in the crime are completely unaffected. On the other hand, this means that the law only targets real criminals. If a police officer knocked on a door after hearing/seeing distress on private property and captured a murder/robbery/assault on their body camera, that evidence would become futile - because the police did not have a warrant. It is likely that the perpetrator in this scenario would be successfully indicted – but the primary and damning evidence of the body camera footage would be covered up. Does the legal system truly represent prioritizing a criminal's constitutional rights over the pursuit of justice? Many argue that this is exactly the purpose of the legal system: to also help balance the balance between the government and its citizens. Although this may be factually accurate, the exclusion of certain evidence before trial presents the perpetrator in an innocent light, thereby realizing the fundamental right to deserve a fair and impartial trial and to maintain the belief that one is innocent until until his guilt is proven. the exclusionary rule applied to evidence occurred in 1914 in the United States Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States. Since then, 19 cases have come before the Supreme Court that resulted in the exclusionary rule being applied. However, the rule has been used hundreds of times in smaller county courts.The most recent being the Gilton v. United States case, in which Antonio Gilton murdered his teenage sister's pimp. The Ninth Circuit, more commonly known as the court of appeals, allowed federal prosecutors in the case to resurface and use cellphone location history against Gilton. This is an example of a scenario in which illegally received evidence was produced legally because it is the only piece of evidence placing Gilton at the scene of the murder. The three qualities of a functioning legal system are access - meaning the ability to receive and use lawyers and legal aid provided by the state, equality - meaning that everyone is treated the same - regardless of race, age, gender or financial situation and finally fairness - the element that most specifically relates to this example. If the American justice system is willing to include evidence that suits its interests, why should it be able to choose what it includes in a hearing? Once one of the three elements is compromised, the others fall – creating an unjust society – something America has achieved on a magnificent scale. This inclusion of cell phone information is yet another display of authoritarian superiority because it violates one of the most important concepts of the Fourth Amendment – ​​the exclusionary rule. Having another unnecessary and flimsy rule only grants more power to the executive branch of the country - further disrupting the conflict between the people and the government and hindering the political stability of the three branches of government - the judiciary, the executive and legislative. Now the most interesting part of this speech - Account of Witness X, Lawyer The identity of informant 3838 has not been revealed for obvious security reasons. However, many of my family friends working in the legal industry can confirm that the entire legal community knows who she is - and gang criminals almost certainly know the identity of their own lawyer. For today's purposes, I'll call it I38. Perhaps his most infamous client was Tony Mokbel, responsible for the largest attempt to import ecstasy ever. Fortunately, the drugs were discovered hidden in tomato cans in 2007, weighing a total of 4.4 tonnes. In 2012, Mokbel was sentenced by the High Court of Australia to 30 years in prison, with a minimum of 22 years' imprisonment. Because all lawyers have an obligation to protect the best interests of their clients, providing incriminating evidence constitutes serious misconduct. Because her clients confided in her, I38 ​​knew of many upcoming crimes. So she began providing information to the Vic police so that she would not be considered complicit in the crimes. Her reporting experience began in 2003, and was not registered as an official Vic police informant until 2005. Due to her right to anonymity, the judges using her information to prosecute were unaware that she was a lawyer. Between 2005 and 2009, his information led to 380 arrests. She also helped by introducing the undercover police as trusted friends/family to her clients. In 2010, I38 ​​received compensation of $2.88 million for its role in the convictions. Because of his compromising position as a lawyer and informant, his clients are likely to seek judicial review on the grounds that they have been wrongly convicted. Although these criminals are clearly guilty - with myriad documents, images and audio clips implied, it..