Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. New

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1995No. 18765Published

1DissentSabers, Justice

New was illegally arrested and detained and any statements he made while under his illegal incarceration should be excluded as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).

New cooperated with law enforcement. He was subpoenaed to testify at the White Horse trial. Before leaving his home state of Minnesota, New asked South Dakota law en-*720foreement if there were any outstanding warrants against him in South Dakota. He was told, “No.” New came to South Dakota to testify only because of this assurance. Before he could return home to Minnesota,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. State v. PiersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
  3. State v. TaranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  4. Davis v. HackneySupreme Court of Virginia · 1955
  5. Citizens Bank v. WilliamsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API