What is the main distinction between "fruit from the poisonous tree" and "fruit of a crime"?

The concept of "fruit from the poisonous tree" refers to evidence that has been obtained through illegal means, often as a result of an unlawful search or seizure. This doctrine states that if the initial evidence is tainted due to illegality, any subsequent evidence derived from it is also inadmissible in court because it is considered "poisoned" by its origin. In contrast, "fruit of a crime" pertains to evidence that is directly related to or derived from a criminal act. This term does not specifically imply any illegality in how the evidence was obtained; rather, it indicates that the evidence resulted from misconduct.

Therefore, the main distinction lies in the legality of how the evidence is obtained. "Fruit from the poisonous tree" highlights the legal repercussions of obtaining evidence through improper means, whereas "fruit of a crime" merely indicates that the evidence comes from criminal activity without necessarily addressing how it was acquired. This understanding is crucial in the context of criminal law and the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings.