In which case did the Supreme Court determine that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used in a criminal trial?

The determination that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used in a criminal trial comes from the case Mapp v. Ohio. This landmark decision established the exclusionary rule at the state level, which prohibits the use of evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule is an essential component of the Fourth Amendment, meaning that any evidence obtained through illegal means cannot be presented in court. This ruling reinforced the importance of protecting individual rights and privacy, ensuring that law enforcement's evidence-gathering practices adhere to constitutional standards. The precedent set in this case has had a lasting impact on criminal justice, influencing how evidence is handled in trials across the United States.

The other cases listed pertain to different legal principles. Miranda v. Arizona established the requirement for advising suspects of their rights upon arrest, Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, and Gideon v. Wainwright addressed the right to legal counsel. Each of these cases is significant in its own right but does not specifically relate to the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal trials.