Use of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution (Crim Pro) – what is inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief?

• A. Evidence obtained during a deliberate, reckless or gross negligent violation is admissible
• B. Evidence obtained during a deliberate, reckless or gross negligent violation is inadmissible
• C. Miranda violation against a third party is admissible
• D. An exception allows any such evidence in the case-in-chief

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how the exclusionary rule applies to tainted evidence. Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally not allowed in the prosecution’s case-in-chief to deter police misconduct and protect constitutional rights. When the police act with especially culpable conduct—deliberately, or with reckless or grossly negligent disregard for the defendant’s rights—the taint is not purged and the evidence must be excluded in the case-in-chief. This reflects a strong deterrent function: the more blameworthy the police conduct, the more likely the evidence will be barred.

The other choices don’t fit because: admitting such evidence would contradict the basic rule that illegal-gets-evidentiary-taint is barred in the case-in-chief; Miranda-related violations involve separate considerations and don’t override the Fourth Amendment rule about tainted evidence for the case-in-chief in this context; and there isn’t a blanket exception allowing any such evidence—the law provides narrow exceptions, not a free pass.