Opinion ID: 726087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Sought to Be Excluded

Text: 47 For evidentiary purposes, information obtained from the prison visit with Joseph O'Daniel is fatally flawed. The record, although vague, leads to the inescapable conclusion that Badaracco asked O'Daniel about Leake and the U-Haul trip before O'Daniel volunteered any information. 14 48 Such questions were impermissible. Badaracco's questions were based upon knowledge obtained as a result of the illegal search. He queried O'Daniel about Leake, his alias and the U-Haul trip--questions he could formulate only by virtue of illegally obtained evidence. The government may not use tainted evidence to induce production of competent evidence. Simply put, Badaracco cannot ask O'Daniel about John Sandusky and the U-Haul trip when the government knew of the alias and the trip through Robin. 15 Testimony from O'Daniel fails the test whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, [the evidence has] been come at by the exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). 49 Accordingly, we hold that Leake's involvement in the conspiracy cannot be proven with testimony or information obtained from Joseph O'Daniel. This is true of future as well as past testimony and information. The court can never know whether O'Daniel would have implicated Leake absent the questions grounded in illegally obtained evidence. 16 The government has failed to meet its burden of proof that any information from O'Daniel would have been inevitably discovered absent the illegal search. Future prosecution of Leake must proceed without information provided by O'Daniel. 50
51 Leake also seeks to suppress all evidence relating to the alias John Sandusky because the alias was not known to investigators until it was illegally obtained through Robin. The government argues that the independent source doctrine permits introduction of the evidence, as the name was discovered on utility records and on the registration of a vehicle on the Ewing, Missouri, farm. 52 For reasons already set forth, information regarding John Sandusky cannot be introduced through O'Daniel or through information provided by Robin. Thus its admissibility depends on whether it was obtained legitimately through other means. Because the proffered other means involve the utility and vehicle registration records obtained subsequent to a search of the Ewing, Missouri, farm, the government must prove that that farm was discovered via untainted evidence. 53 The government contends its June 1988 search of the Ewing farm was based upon information provided by Atkinson at his March 31, 1988, interview. (Government's brief at 8). However, a contemporaneous DEA report indicates--and Badaracco's testimony verifies--that Atkinson never mentioned Ewing during the March 31 interview. (See DEA Report appended to Docket 237). Badaracco testified Atkinson could not remember the exact location but described the farm as very close to Quincy, Illinois. (J.A. at 173). It was through Robin's illegally obtained statement in April 1988 that investigators were pointed directly to Ewing, Missouri. 54 While it is conceivable that investigators might have worked their way to the Ewing farm and subpoenaed the records that revealed the name John Sandusky absent the information provided by Robin, 17 the government has failed to carry its burden of proof by way of demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment. Nix, 467 U.S. at 444-45 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. at 2509 n. 5. All evidence related to the name John Sandusky and to the Ewing farm must be excluded. 18
55 Leake seeks to suppress the U-Haul receipt from his 1987 trip originally described by Robin. The United States argues it would have inevitably discovered the receipt from O'Daniel following his guilty plea had it not already known about the trip at that time. For reasons already set forth, information obtained in the interview with O'Daniel cannot be used as a basis of introducing the U-Haul receipt. Because no legitimate means for introduction of the receipt was proffered at the suppression hearing, the U-Haul receipt must be excluded.
56 Badaracco testified at the 1994 suppression hearing that phone records for Leake's residence had just been recently been subpoenaed and had not yet been received. An unmistakable inference is that the records were not subpoenaed until after the January 1994 prison interview with O'Daniel. For reasons we already have made clear, the phone records cannot be introduced through O'Daniel. Because no legitimate means for introduction of the phone records was proffered at the suppression hearing, the phone records must be excluded. 19
57 Leake further seeks exclusion of the following: a) evidence establishing a connection between himself and the Owen County, Indiana, farms; b) evidence establishing a connection between himself and the Missouri farms; 20 c) evidence obtained from Missouri real estate agents who were questioned by DEA agents; and d) evidence regarding Atkinson's debriefing on March 31, 1988. 58 Any evidence gathered by investigators prior to the illegal search of Leake's residence has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. Nix, 467 U.S. at 443, 104 S.Ct. at 2508. This would include evidence arising from the debriefing of Atkinson and the statements of the Missouri real estate agents. 59 Leake's request to exclude evidence connecting him to the Indiana and Missouri farms is too broad for us to grant in the abstract. We have made clear what evidence is not admissible; we are not persuaded any competent evidence will remain to connect Leake to the farms; but we will not issue a flat mandate that no such evidence is admissible.