# Taking the Fifth yet being in contempt **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 10, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447 "2014-01-10T16:51:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447/21 "2014-01-12T18:17:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “[Fruit of the poisonous tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree).” The “independent evidence” **Bricker** refers to means the state has to find the stuff without reference to the excluded evidence, or show that such discovery was inevitable. Which seems to me to be an easy proposition much like the one **septimus** described. Now that the prosecution knows the end result, its simply a matter of reverse engineering a plausible scenario where the evidence would have been found by a different manner. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447/22 "2014-01-12T20:28:48Z")
Yeah, pretty much. But ISTM that there’s effectively a presumption against independent discovery. **Bricker** can probably elucidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447/23 "2014-01-13T00:24:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yeah, pretty much. But ISTM that there’s effectively a presumption against independent discovery. **Bricker** can probably elucidate. Yes. The state usually has the burden of showing that the evidence was developed independently of the tainted testimony, and the presumption is that it was not. The state typically needs to take measures like a “[Chinese Wall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall)” between the investigators that have the tainted information and the investigators that develop the replacement information without recourse to the tainted evidence. And of course the defense is permitted to depose the people involved and try to show that this did not happen. > [@septimus](#): > > There’s something I’ve always wondered about. Suppose a witness granted use immunity says “I killed the missing lovebirds and left their bodies at the ninth tree near Lover’s Lane.” What’s to stop prosecutor from calling his friend in the Park Dept. and suggesting the 9th tree as venue for a study? (Perhaps my scenario is faulty, but the general question should be clear.) So in that case, the defense can examine, under oath, the Park Department employee and the prosecutor and reveal that contact. We assume the prosecutor is (usually) not willing to risk prison and disbarment for perjury just to achieve one conviction – and even less so the Park Department guy. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447/24 "2014-01-13T18:59:54Z")
Re: the Case of the Late Lovebirds > [@Bricker](#): > > So in that case, the defense can examine, under oath, the Park Department employee and the prosecutor and reveal that contact. We assume the prosecutor is (usually) not willing to risk prison and disbarment for perjury just to achieve one conviction – and even less so the Park Department guy. But wait, as stated by **septimus** , all the prosecutor was doing was telling Ms. Knope–uh, I mean, the Parks Department person–that this was where the bodies could be found. There was no indication that there would be follow-up prosecution. Doesn’t this sometimes happen in cases where the prosecutor wants to at least locate a body or bodies to close the case (and let the families know what happened)? Or is the prosecutor forbidden from using the info in _any way_, even if immunity from prosecution has been granted? If that’s the case, what’s the point of asking the question? I’d just hate to think that the owners of those lovebirds will never know what happened to them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447/25 "2014-01-13T21:31:52Z")
Sure, they can go find the bodies - but it will doom any subsequent prosecution (at least any that rely on evidence collected from the dump site.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-the-fifth-yet-being-in-contempt/678447.md?page=1)