I believe the answer is yes, but I thought I would ask. I see that al-Libi is being interrogated right now regarding al Qaeda plans, etc. When that is over, they want to try him for the embassy bombings in '98. Supposing they were to torture him or at the very least, deprive him of counsel. Would his interrogation prejudice his trial? Statements made under duress are not admissible, of course, but if he were interrogated separately with counsel present (or if he waives right to counsel) I assume that any statements he makes would not be fruit of the poisoned tree. Is that accurate?
Thanks,
Rob
I suspect he’s being held as an “Unlawful Combatant,” and will be tried before a military tribunal who, for all practical purposes, gets to make up the rules to suit themselves.
Yes, it’s disturbing and Stalin-esque, but welcome to the USA in 2013.
That’s generally accurate, but really the answer is that it isn’t poisoned unless it is. If the defense didn’t have any way to attack the evidence obtained during the second round of questioning specifically, the mere fact of other impermissible interrogation wouldn’t have any bearing on the new evidence. That’s not to say that we couldn’t imagine a scenario where the second round would be tainted - that’s basically what Missouri v. Seibert was about. The police were getting a confession illegally, then Mirandizing the suspect, and then saying OK, now, you were saying… ? But that’s the same evidence trying to be cured.
To get a sense for where the edges start to blur, you might be interested in reading a bit about “parallel construction,” which is essentially a law enforcement technique for unpoisoning the tree.
I believe the interrogation is about obtaining current info about al-qadea plans, etc. They already have enough info to convict him on the embassy bombings, they think. That is why he was indicted and there was the reward for him in the first place.