463 Mass. 353 - Appellee Commonwealth Brief - Mass Cases

767 (2005), where the defendant's decision to testify
was forced on him by a police illegality that should
have resulted in invocation of the exclusionary
principles. Suppression extends to the "fruits" of the
police illegality, such as "derivative evidence, both
tangible and testimonial, that is the product of the
primary evidence, or that is otherwise acquired as an
indirect result of the unlawful search, up to the point
at which the connection with the unlawful search
becomes 'so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.'"
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536-537 (1988)
(citations omitted) . In Charras, the "taint"
associated with the police illegality extended far and
even the defendant's own testimony was considered to be
a "derivative" of it, under the special circumstances
of that case. Charras, 443 Mass. at 766.
This case is not like Charras. The certificates
of analysis would have been admissible in evidence if
the analyst had appeared in court. The certificates
were not subject to suppression and there is no
exclusionary principle that would bar its admission at
a retrial. The evidence that was illegally seized in
Charras and which forced the defendant to have to
testify was inadmissible because it had been illegally
36