James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbade the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness.
On August 30, 1982, a group of eight boys was confronted by another group of boys who demanded money. The group of eight refused and was fired upon, resulting in the death of one boy and injury to another. After police arrived on the scene the group of eight acted as witnesses by recounting their experience to the police. Darryl James was eventually brought into custody as a suspect. He was arrested in his mother's beauty salon. The police questioned him about his hair color to which he responded that although his hair was currently black and curly it had previously been reddish-brown and slicked back. After arriving at the police station James was again questioned and he then told police he changed his hair color to alter his appearance.
James was eventually indicted for murder and attempted murder. James attempted to suppress the statements he had previously made about his hair as being "fruit of the poisonous tree" obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as there had been no probable cause for his arrest.
Lower courtsedit
At trial the state's witnesses testified that the shooter had reddish hair that was slicked back. Each witness also identified James from weeks prior where they admitted he met the description, although one witness, Henderson, said James' hair was black on that day. Although James objected to the testimony, the trial court allowed James' statements regarding his hair to impeach Henderson, and James was subsequently convicted.
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction, holding that James' statements should have been suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree", even to impeach Henderson. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation and thereby reinstating the murder conviction.
Opinion of the Courtedit
Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court in a 5–4 decision in favor of James, reversing both his conviction and the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. He noted that James' statements could not be used in a court of law and that the Illinois Supreme Court "wrongly expanded the practice" of illegally obtaining evidence to impeach a defendant's own testimony. Justice Brennan noted that this expansion "would frustrate rather than further the purposes underlying the exclusionary rule."[1][2]
Referencesedit
^"James v. Illinois - 493 U.S. 307 (1990)". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved January 16, 2014.
james, illinois, this, article, needs, additional, citations, verification, please, help, improve, this, article, adding, citations, reliable, sources, unsourced, material, challenged, removed, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, september,. This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources James v Illinois news newspapers books scholar JSTOR September 2014 Learn how and when to remove this message James v Illinois 493 U S 307 1990 was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbade the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness James v IllinoisSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 3 1989Decided January 10 1990Full case nameJames v IllinoisCitations493 U S 307 more 110 S Ct 648 107 L Ed 2d 676 1990 U S LEXIS 335 58 U S L W 4115Case historyPriorCert to the Supreme Court of IllinoisCourt membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunJohn P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorAntonin Scalia Anthony KennedyCase opinionsMajorityBrennan joined by White Marshall Blackmun StevensConcurrenceStevensDissentKennedy joined by Rehnquist O Connor ScaliaLaws appliedU S Const amend IV Contents 1 Background 1 1 Lower courts 2 Opinion of the Court 3 References 4 External linksBackground editOn August 30 1982 a group of eight boys was confronted by another group of boys who demanded money The group of eight refused and was fired upon resulting in the death of one boy and injury to another After police arrived on the scene the group of eight acted as witnesses by recounting their experience to the police Darryl James was eventually brought into custody as a suspect He was arrested in his mother s beauty salon The police questioned him about his hair color to which he responded that although his hair was currently black and curly it had previously been reddish brown and slicked back After arriving at the police station James was again questioned and he then told police he changed his hair color to alter his appearance James was eventually indicted for murder and attempted murder James attempted to suppress the statements he had previously made about his hair as being fruit of the poisonous tree obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment as there had been no probable cause for his arrest Lower courts edit At trial the state s witnesses testified that the shooter had reddish hair that was slicked back Each witness also identified James from weeks prior where they admitted he met the description although one witness Henderson said James hair was black on that day Although James objected to the testimony the trial court allowed James statements regarding his hair to impeach Henderson and James was subsequently convicted The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction holding that James statements should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree even to impeach Henderson The Illinois Supreme Court reversed this decision holding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation and thereby reinstating the murder conviction Opinion of the Court editJustice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court in a 5 4 decision in favor of James reversing both his conviction and the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court He noted that James statements could not be used in a court of law and that the Illinois Supreme Court wrongly expanded the practice of illegally obtaining evidence to impeach a defendant s own testimony Justice Brennan noted that this expansion would frustrate rather than further the purposes underlying the exclusionary rule 1 2 References edit James v Illinois 493 U S 307 1990 Oyez Chicago Kent College of Law Retrieved January 16 2014 James v Illinois 493 U S 307 1990 External links editText of James v Illinois 493 U S 307 1990 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title James v Illinois amp oldid 1175144188, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
