Count

   count

ID Semântico:	marcilio:count
Classe:	Direito Comparado
Nível Técnico:	Profissional
Origem do Termo:	Inglês
Áreas de Foco:	Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
Jurisdição:	EUA/Brasil

Progresso do texto
		Início
		Básico
		Criação
		Desenvolvimento
		Maturação
		Revisão
		Desenvolvido
		Finalização
		Abrangente

Significado Prático

1. count →\n1 - (processo penal) cada uma das imputações em\numa denúncia; imputação; acusação; fato.\n● He was charged with three counts of\nattempted murder → (simplifique) ele foi\ndenunciado por três tentativas de\nhomicídio.\n● three counts of murder = três fatos\ntipificados como homicídio; três acusações\nde homicídio.\n\n2 - (processo civil) cada uma das diferentes causas\nde pedir em uma ação cível.\n________________\n\n\n\n\n#fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree\ndoctrine; fruits doctrine | (criminal\nlaw) teoria dos #frutos da árvore\nenvenenada; teoria da #prova ilícita\npor derivação.\n• Em inglês a expressão é escrita no singular,\npois se cuida de um phrasal adjective:\no fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.\n▪ Atenção para os hífens do\nphrasal adjective.\n• Em português, no plural: teoria dos frutos\nda árvore envenenada.\n\n• Curiosidade:\no A tradução literal seria “teoria do\nfruto da árvore venenosa”.\no Mas se adotou no Brasil a expressão\n“teoria dos frutos das árvore\nenvenenada”.\n\nNo Black’s:\n• The rule that evidence derived from an\nillegal (prova derivada)\no search,\no arrest, or\no interrogation\n• is inadmissible\n• because the evidence (the ‘fruit’)\n\n• was tainted (contaminada) by the illegality\n(the ‘poisonous tree’).\nEm www.law.cornell.edu:\n• The fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine\nwas established in 1920 by the decision\nin Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,\nand\n• the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" was\ncoined by Justice Frankfurter\n• in his 1939 opinion in Nardone v. United\nStates.\n_\n• No Brasil, a regra equivalente está nos\nartigos 155 a 157 do CPP e art. 5º, LVI,\nCF/88.\n\n\n• #tainted evidence →\no #prova ilícita;\no #prova contaminada pela ilicitude\n(teoria dos frutos da árvore\nenvenenada).\no Etimologia: “tainted” possui a\nmesma origem da palavra tingir em\nPortuguês → tingere, em latin.\n▪ https://www.etymonline.com\n/search?q=taint\n▪ Portanto, a prova estaria\n“tingida” pela ilicitude\nderivada.\n\n\n\nSilverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251\nU.S. 385 (1920),\n• was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which\nSilverthorne attempted to evade paying\ntaxes.\n• Federal agents illegally seized tax books\nfrom Silverthorne and created copies of the\nrecords.\n• The issue in this case is whether or not\nderivatives of illegal evidence are\npermissible in court.\n• The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell\nHolmes, Jr., was that to permit derivatives\nwould encourage police to circumvent the\nFourth Amendment,\n• so the illegal copied evidence was held\ntainted (contamidada) and inadmissible.\n• This precedent later became known as the\n"fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,"\n• and is an extension of the exclusionary rule\n(regra de exclusão das provas ilícitas).\nHolding:\n• To permit derivatives\n• would encourage police to circumvent the\nFourth Amendment,\n• so the illegal copied evidence\n• was held tainted and inadmissible.\n\n• derivative evidence → prova derivada (de\nprova ilícita).\n\n\n• Like the exclusionary rule itself, this doctrine\nis subject to important exceptions.\nThe evidence will not be excluded:\n1. if it was discovered from a source\nindependent of the illegal\nactivity;\n2. its discovery was inevitable;\n3. or if there is attenuation\nbetween the illegal activity and the\ndiscovery of the evidence.\n4. Further, if the primary evidence was\nillegally obtained, but admissible\nunder the good faith\nexception, its derivatives (or\n"fruit") may also be admissible.\n\nUnited States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897\n(1984):\n• The exclusionary rule is designed to deter\npolice misconduct →\n• o fundamento da existência da regra de\nexclusão de provas ilícitas é prevenir\ncondutas ilícitas pela polícia.\n\nTag #fruit of the #fruits of the\n\nExplicando cada uma das exceções (exceptions) à\nfruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine:\n\n\n1 - #Independent Source Doctrine\n→ teoria da #fonte\nindependente.\n• Evidence initially obtained during an\nunlawful search or seizure\n• may later be admissible if the evidence is\nlater obtained through a constitutionally\nvalid search or seizure.\n• Murray v. U.S. is the modern interpretation\nof the independent source doctrine,\noriginally adopted in Nix v. Williams.\n• Additionally, some courts recognize an\n"expanded" doctrine, in which a partially\ntainted warrant is upheld (considerado\nválido) if,\n• after excluding the tainted information that\nlead to its issuance, the remaining untainted\ninformation establishes probable cause\nsufficient to justify its issuance.\n• See, for example, the South Dakota Supreme\nCourt decision in State v. Boll.\n\nMurray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988),\n• was a United States Supreme Court decision\nthat created the modern "independent\nsource doctrine" exception to the\nexclusionary rule.\n• The exclusionary rule makes most evidence\ngathered through violations of the Fourth\nAmendment to the United States\n\nConstitution inadmissible in criminal trials as\n"fruit of the poisonous tree".\n• In Murray, the Court ruled that when\nofficers conduct two searches, the first\nunlawful and the second lawful, evidence\nseized during the second search is\nadmissible if the second search "is genuinely\nindependent of the earlier one."\n\n\n\nNix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984),\n• was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created\nan "inevitable discovery" exception to the\nexclusionary rule.\n• The exclusionary rule makes most evidence\ngathered through violations of the Fourth\nAmendment to the United States\nConstitution,\n• which protects against unreasonable search\nand seizure,\n• inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the\npoisonous tree".\n• In Nix, the Court ruled that evidence that\nwould inevitably have been discovered by\nlaw enforcement through legal means\nremained admissible.\n\nFacts of the case\n\n• Williams was arrested for the murder of a\nten-year-old girl who's body he disposed of\nalong a gravel road.\n• State law enforcement officials engaged in a\nmassive search for the child's body.\n• During the search, after responding to an\nofficer's appeal for assistance, Williams\nmade statements to the police (without an\nattorney present) which helped lead the\nsearchers to the child's body.\n• The defendant's Miranda rights were only\nread to him after his arrest.\nQuestion\nShould evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded\nfrom trial because it was improperly obtained?\nConclusion\n• No. The Court relied on the "inevitable\ndiscovery doctrine,"\n• as it held that the exclusionary rule did not\napply to the child's body as evidence\n• since it was clear that the volunteer search\nteams would have discovered the body\n• even absent Williams's statements.\n\n\n2 - #Inevitable Discovery Doctrine\n→ teoria da #descoberta\ninevitável\n• Related to the independent source doctrine,\nabove,\n\n• and also adopted in Nix v. Williams,\n• the inevitable discovery doctrine allows\nadmission of evidence that was discovered\nin an unlawful search or seizure (busca e\napreensão ilícita)\n• if it would have be discovered in the same\ncondition anyway,\n• by an independent line of investigation that\nwas already being pursued when the\nunlawful search or seizure occurred. → por\numa linha de investigação independente,\nque já estava sendo conduzida quando a\nbusca e apreensão ilícita foi realizada.\n• The prosecution bears the burden of\nestablishing the inevitability of the\ndiscovery. → O Ministério Público tem o\nônus de provar a inevitabilidade da\ndescoberta.\n\n\n3 - #Attenuation Doctrine →\nteoria da #atenuação\n• In cases where the relationship between the\no evidence challenged (impugnada)\nand\no the unconstitutional conduct\n• is too\no remote and\no attenuated,\n• the evidence may be admissible.\n\no See Utah v. Strieff.\n• Brown v. Illinois, cited in Strieff, articulated\nthree factors for the courts to consider\nwhen determining attenuation:\no temporal proximity,\no the presence of intervening\ncircumstances, and\no the purpose and flagrancy of the\nofficial misconduct (ato ilícito pelo\nagente público).\n\nUtah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056\n(2016),\n• was a case in which the Supreme Court of\nthe United States\n• limited the scope of the Fourth\nAmendment's exclusionary rule.\nHolding:\n• The evidence seized incident to arrest is\nadmissible.\n• The officer's discovery of a valid, pre-\nexisting, and untainted arrest warrant\n• attenuated the connection between the\nunconstitutional investigatory stop (busca\npessoal inconstitucional) and\n• the evidence seized incident to a lawful\narrest.\n\n• investigatory stop = stop-and-frisk =\ninvestigatory detention = Terry stop = Terry\nsearch = field stop → busca pessoal.\n\n\n\nFacts of the case\n• Utah Detective Douglas Fackrell received an\nanonymous tip about drug sales in a South\nSalt Lake residence,\n• so he surveyed the area over a short period\nof time and speculated there was drug\nactivity taking place.\n• Fackrell saw Strieff leaving the residence\nand stopped him for questioning.\n• During the stop, Fackrell discovered Strieff\nhad an outstanding warrant (mandado de\nprisão em aberto) and arrested him.\n• During the lawful search after his arrest,\nFackrell found methamphetamine and a\ndrug pipe on Strieff’s person.\n\nQuestion\n• Should evidence seized incident to a lawful\narrest on an outstanding warrant\n• be suppressed because the warrant was\n• discovered during an investigatory stop\n(busca pessoal) later found to be unlawful?\n\nConclusion\n• In the absence of flagrant police misconduct,\nthe discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and\nuntainted arrest warrant attenuated\n(weakened) the connection between the\n\nunconstitutional investigatory stop and the\nevidence seized incident to the lawful arrest,\n• which allowed the evidence to be used\nagainst the defendant.\n• The Court held that evidence obtained in\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment’s\nprotections should not be excluded from\nevidence when the costs of its exclusion\noutweighs its benefits.\n• Exclusion is not justified when the link\nbetween the unconstitutional conduct and\nthe discovered evidence is too attenuated.\n• To determine whether the connection is\nattenuated, courts must examine the\no temporal proximity of the discovery\nof the evidence to the\nunconstitutional conduct, the\no presence of intervening\ncircumstances, and\no the flagrancy of the police\nmisconduct.\n• Based on the analysis of those factors,\n• when a valid warrant is discovered after an\nunconstitutional investigatory stop, →\nquando um mandado de prisão válido for\ndescoberto após uma busca pessoal\ninconstitucional\n• the connection between the\nunconstitutional conduct and the discovery\nof evidence incident to a lawful arrest based\non the warrant is sufficiently attenuated.\n\n\n

Simplificação de Linguagem (Lei 15.263/2025)

Abaixo, a comparação prática de aplicação do termo sob a ótica do acesso à justiça:

Redação Formal (Juridiquês)	Redação Cidadã (Linguagem Simples)
"O correspondente para o termo 'count' em processos transnacionais..."	"#count →..."

Detalhes Classificatórios

• Áreas do Direito associadas: Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Inglês Jurídico
• Classe Terminológica: Direito Comparado
• Natureza Jurídica: Termo e Conceito Estrangeiro
• Nível Técnico sugerido: Profissional

Aspectos Linguísticos

• Idioma originário: Inglês
• Etimologia: Origem da linguagem jurídica norte-americana / direito comparado.
• Pronúncia ou leitura recomendada: count

Referência Bibliográfica

• Dicionário Marcílio Atualizado Constantemente (2024)