United States v. Ceccolini
435 U.S. 268 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusionary rule should be invoked with much greater reluctance for live-witness testimony than for inanimate physical evidence. The voluntary testimony of a witness whose identity was discovered through an illegal search may be admissible if the connection between the illegal conduct and the testimony has become sufficiently attenuated.
Facts:
- The FBI was investigating suspected gambling operations and had previously conducted surveillance on a flower shop owned by respondent Ceccolini.
- In December 1974, over a year after surveillance ended, Officer Ronald Biro was on a break in the flower shop conversing with an employee, Lois Hennessey.
- While behind the customer counter, Biro noticed an envelope with money protruding from a cash register drawer.
- Biro unlawfully picked up and examined the envelope, discovering it contained policy (illegal gambling) slips.
- He placed the envelope back and asked Hennessey to whom it belonged; she replied it belonged to Ceccolini and that he had instructed her to give it to someone.
- Biro reported his discovery to detectives, who informed the FBI. Four months later, an FBI agent interviewed Hennessey, who was cooperative and willing to help.
- After Ceccolini testified before a grand jury that he had never taken policy bets, Hennessey testified to the contrary.
- Ceccolini was subsequently indicted for perjury based on the conflict between his testimony and Hennessey's.
Procedural Posture:
- Ceccolini was indicted for perjury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and moved to suppress the testimony of Lois Hennessey.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found Ceccolini guilty but then granted his motion to suppress Hennessey's testimony as the fruit of an illegal search.
- Because there was insufficient evidence of guilt without the suppressed testimony, the District Court set aside the guilty verdict.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Ceccolini as the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision to suppress the testimony.
- The United States petitioned for, and was granted, a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusionary rule require the suppression of a live witness's testimony when that testimony is the product of the witness's own free will, even if the witness's identity was discovered through an illegal search?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The exclusionary rule does not require suppression of the witness's testimony because the connection between the illegal search and the testimony was sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint. While verbal evidence can be the 'fruit' of official illegality, it is different from physical evidence because of a witness's free will. The court must consider the degree of free will exercised by the witness, as a witness's voluntary choice to testify is a significant intervening act that can break the causal chain from the illegality. Here, Hennessey’s testimony was an act of her own free will, a substantial period of time passed between the search and her testimony, her identity was already known to investigators, and the officer did not conduct the search with the intent of finding a witness. Therefore, the societal cost of perpetually silencing a willing witness outweighs the negligible deterrent effect that applying the exclusionary rule would have in this situation.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
No. The judgment should be affirmed, but the Court's reasoning does not go far enough; live-witness testimony should be admissible on a per se basis, provided it meets other evidentiary requirements. The fundamental distinction between live-witness testimony and inanimate evidence makes an attenuation analysis based on 'free will' an unnecessary and unworkable philosophical inquiry. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is deterrence, and it is implausible that an officer would consciously engage in illegal action to find a witness, knowing any tangible evidence would be suppressed. The high societal cost of silencing a willing eyewitness to a crime cannot be justified by the speculative and remote deterrent effect of excluding their testimony.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The Court of Appeals' decision to suppress the testimony should be affirmed because the distinction the majority creates between physical and verbal evidence is unsound and cannot withstand analysis. The traditional attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois—temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct—do not support a finding of attenuation here. The road from the illegal search to Hennessey's testimony was 'straight and uninterrupted' as her identity as a key witness was discovered at the moment of the illegal search. No meaningful intervening circumstances occurred, as the FBI sought her out based on the illegal discovery. The search was concededly unconstitutional, and the societal interests protected by the exclusionary rule require suppression of this direct fruit of police illegality.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the application of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine for live-witness testimony. By distinguishing between verbal and physical evidence, the Court created a strong presumption in favor of admitting testimony from witnesses discovered via unconstitutional means. This decision requires lower courts to apply a new balancing test that heavily weighs the witness's 'free will,' making it much more difficult for defendants to suppress testimonial evidence. It effectively provides a path to 'cleanse' the taint of an illegal search if a witness later decides to cooperate voluntarily, thereby reducing the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect in such scenarios.
