Opinion ID: 63259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Independent Source Exception

Text: The primary limit on the exclusionary rule is that otherwise suppressible evidence will still be admitted if the connection between the alleged illegality and the acquisition of evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint. United States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted). The independent source exception allows the introduction of unlawfully discovered evidence when the police have acquired that evidence through a distinct, untainted source. Id. Animating this doctrine is the recognition that the goal of the exclusionary rule is to put the police in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred. Id. (citation omitted). The Government argues that Moreman's testimony regarding the 6323 number is admissible under the independent source exception because Pompa testified at trial that Zavala's cell phone number was the 6323 number. The independent source doctrine does not purge the taint associated with the constitutional violation in this case because no independent source testified that the cell phone Zavala was carrying at the time of his arrest was associated with the 6323 number. For the independent source exception to apply, the evidence obtained through the independent source must be identical to the evidence unlawfully acquired. [6] Murray, 487 U.S. at 538, 108 S.Ct. 2529; see also United States v. Johnson, 380 F.3d 1013, 1016 (7th Cir.2004) (same evidence); United States v. Hawley, 855 F.2d 595, 603 n. 3 (8th Cir.1988) (identical evidence). In this case, the prosecutor himself stated that it was critical to our case to show that [Zavala] had a phone on him showing contact with some of the individuals and not other of the individuals. Moreman testified that he examined the phone that Zavala possessed when he was arrested, and that phone was associated with the 6323 number. Pompa merely testified from memory that he remembered Zavala's cell phone number as being the 6323 number; he did not explain how he acquired this information. The testimony of Moreman is substantively different from the testimony of Pompa. Moreman's testimony is more probative of the ownership of the 6323 number because it was based on his first-hand observation of the cell phone in Zavala's possession at the time of his arrest. The core rationale underlying the exclusionary rule is the deterrence of police misconduct. United States v. Lamas, 930 F.2d 1099, 1102 (5th Cir.1991). The corollary to this principle is that the prosecution must not be put in a better position as a result of the police illegality. Id. In addition to the substantive difference between the testimony of Moreman and Pompa, there is also a difference in the credibility of these two witnesses. Of course, the credibility of any two witnesses will never be identical, and the independent source exception does not always require that both the credibility of the witnesses and the substance of their testimony be identical. In this case, however, we are mindful of our admonishment to criminal juries in this circuit that the testimony of an accomplice must always be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care and caution than the testimony of ordinary witnesses. FIFTH CIRCUIT CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 1.14 (2001); see also United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149, 161 n. 13 (5th Cir.1988). Pompa, an indicted co-conspirator, provided the only other testimony linking Zavala to the 6323 number. Zavala's core trial strategy revolved around (1) challenging the credibility and motives of Luna and Pompa; and (2) suppressing Moreman's testimony regarding the 6323 number. The admission of Moreman's testimony both corroborated the testimony of Luna and Pompa and served as an independent basis for linking Zavala to the other co-conspirators. After considering the differences between the substance of the statements and the credibility of the witnesses, we find that giving the prosecution the benefit of the independent source exception would put it in a better position than it would have been in but for the police misconduct.