Q&A: Disqualification of Evidence Obtained by Deceit in a Monetary Case
Disqualification of Evidence Obtained by Deceit in a Monetary Case
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently I came across an article that said this:
A woman who broke into her ex-husband's email was stunned to discover that their assets were estimated at 100 million dollars. The court was not impressed—and it disqualified the documents she presented.
Do you think it is right to disqualify evidence obtained by deceit in a financial dispute? I thought this was not all that different from the rule that a person may take the law into his own hands, and therefore the evidence should be accepted as long as it is correct, even if it was obtained deceitfully. What do you think?
Answer
This is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. It can be justified in terms of a general view of the legal system, rather than this specific case. Even if in this case there is no justification for it, there could still be justification in terms of its effect on the system as a whole.
Taking the law into one's own hands, according to most opinions, is permitted only where you can prove your case in advance. But here, when she broke the law, she did not know the facts of the matter (since she was "stunned to discover"), and certainly could not prove them. But that is a different discussion, which would require entering into the halakhic topic of taking the law into one's own hands.
It seems to me that in our legal system this doctrine is used in a very limited way, much less than by the Americans.
True, but thank God, there are signs that its use is being expanded in Israeli law as well.