Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/20

 Sun. Yee's statement that he had been furnished heroin was substantiated by his actual possession of the drug. His surrender of the narcotics to the officers, without a search, was not attended by any unlawful conduct by the officers. His statement that Toy had been one of the two who furnished the heroin was substantiated by Toy's detailed knowledge of Yee's possession of the narcotics, as revealed in Toy's earlier statement to the officers. Yee's tie-in of "Sea Dog" with Toy dove-tailed immediately thereafter with Toy's knowledge of the real name of "Sea Dog" Wong Sun and Toy's knowledge of where Wong Sun lived.

On the assumption that the arrests were illegal, petitioners contend that all the evidence obtained after those arrests, must be deemed the "fruits of the poisonous tree" and therefore inadmissible. While it is the rule that, if the evidence sought to be introduced is the true product of illegal government action it is excludable, it is not the rule that the mere fact that there has been illegal government action at some prior point is sufficient. If the evidence is attributable to an intervening act of free will on the part of the defendant and not to the illegal government action, the evidence is admissible. Whether evidence can be said to be the result of the illegal action or of an independent act of free will requires a judgment based on the precise facts of a given case. In particular, the question of whether a statement made at the time of illegal entry should be deemed admissible