Preview

Examples Of Confession In Court Cases

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
876 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Examples Of Confession In Court Cases
1. According to Gardiner &Anderson 2007, A confession is generally viewed as the same as a guilty plea in open court. There are several ways a confession can be deemed unconstitutional. For example, from the previous sections we learned about the exclusionary rule. Which states that any evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in court. In addition to that comes forth the “Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” which states not only is illegally obtained evidence excluded from court, this is to include evidence that is derived from an illegal search. In other words, say the accused is charged with murder and the judge declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, and then whatever confession the defendant made …show more content…
Typically, when a witness gets impeached, it’s generally done during the cross examination process. What this means is that the judge will not dismiss the witness if he finds the witness to be incredible. Therefore, the witness testimony will not be credible as well. Furthermore, if a witness is impeached, this does not mean that the witness will automatically be dismissed nor be able to testify. When you want to impeach a witness, you basically have to compare what the witness announces on the stand to what is said on their affidavit. In other words, you’re looking for the inconsistencies between their statements and their actual testimony. This could possibly result in the witness being biased. A great example of a witness being impeached is Detective Mark Furhmans testimony on the OJ trial. In this case in his earlier testimony he stated he did not use racial slurs in the past ten years. However, revealing tapes said otherwise which forced him to be impeached.
4. Hearsay is defined as someone who obtains information through overhearing someone else rather than of their personal knowledge. For example, sometimes a statement can have a hearsay use and a non hearsay use. If I told you “I am going to kill you,” typically you would want to prove to the judge that I had the intent on killing you. That would be hearsay because it goes along with the truth of the statement. However, if all you wanted to do is to prove that I said those words then that would not apply to the hearsay

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Nix V. Williams Summary

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Evidence has demonstrated that at the time of unconstitutional interrogation, a search was already in place for the victim, and the body would have inevitably been found. This means had there not be illegal conduct by the police officers, the fairness of the trial would have remained the…

    • 822 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people lie on the testimony stand but not everyone gets caught. That depends on many factors it depends on if the jury is biased like what happened in To Kill A Mockingbird. Bob Ewell lied on the testimony stand in comparison to real-world George Freeman lied for the same reason as Bob Ewell to protect themselves. People will do anything to save themselves or to benefit themselves. George Freeman and Bob Ewell from To Kill a Mockingbird are the same because they tried to save themselves, even if it meant to ruin someone else's life.…

    • 492 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse "to be a witness against himself," and Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the use of coerced confessions in criminal proceedings (Peak et at, 2010). However, internal investigations are a different matter. The U.S Supreme Court case of Garrity v. New Jersey defined what must be done. The case got its start when officers under investigation for fixing citations were ordered to give statements or be fired (Roufa, 2014). The statements were then used to convict the officers and they appealed saying that their statements were coerced with the threat of being fired (Roufa, 2014). The court agreed and what arose from the case was the Garrity rule which states “that if an officer is compelled to provide self-incriminating information or statements, such statements…

    • 335 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The case of Miranda v. Arizona dealt with the question, “Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?” This case started in 1963, when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for robbing $8 from a bank worker, and was charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While Miranda was in police custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery, and also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After being convicted, Miranda’s lawyer appealed; on the basis that the defendant did not know he was protected from self-incrimination and therefore did not have to confess to his crimes.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The ruling of Mapp v. Ohio determined that all evidence that is obtained by search and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is admissible in a criminal trial in a state court overruling Wolf v. Colorado, which holds the contrary. The Exclusionary Rule applied not only to the Fourth Amendments protections against search and seizures, but also to the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona brought the Fifth Amendment into the exclusionary rule and found that if a police fails to inform a suspect of their right to remain silent (read their Miranda Rights), if the suspect confesses, their confession was unlawfully collected and cannot be used as evidence in court. Some of the other cases regarding the good-faith exclusion of the Exclusionary Rule are Arizona v. Evans (1995), Davis v. US (2011) and Herring v. US.…

    • 578 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    This case was also impacted because the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and a self-incrimination. The police duties were to give these warnings compelled by the Constitutions Fifth Amendment “which gives a criminal suspect the right to refuse” to be a witness against himself”, and Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    For many years now, there has been an enormous increase in the accusations of innocent defendants of wrongful convictions. Research has shown a number of common factors that appear frequently in wrongful conviction cases, including forensic error, prosecutorial misconduct, false confessions, and eyewitness…

    • 44 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Anonymous. (2004). 8th Circuit: Forceful Questioning Nullifies Confession. Juvenile Justice Digest, 32(17), 4-5. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID:…

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page

    Then there is the impeachment exception and this exception applies to the Miranda or the fourth amendment “which allows statements taken in violation of Miranda or the fourth amendment to be used at trial to impeach the testimony of the accused.” (Garland, 2011,p.268) With this exception the courts are able to use illegally seized evidence.” (Garland, 2011 ,p.268) The illegally seize evidence is what they use to try and get the accused to come clean and admit to the crime.…

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Protection against compelled self-incrimination protects the defendant from being forced to testify against himself/herself. This is based on the concept that “…confessions may not be truthful if they are not made voluntarily (2012). A confession is defined as an admission of guilt by a person accused of committing a criminal offense. Additionally, applying the doctrine of compelled self-incrimination, defendants have the right to refuse to answer the prosecution’s questioning while on the stand, opting to plead the fifth or opting to refusal…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As our category of Hell ascend to our more serious issues or problems that cause disturbances, a tour is given to the ones who want to visit our version of Hell. A place for the ones who commit or correlate to nine levels of horrendous deeds is where you would find our irksome annoyances inserted. To navigate through the nine levels of madness, let us guide you through a journey with Beethoven in hand. With the attendance of the creators of this circle of hell, disastrous punishments lie ahead. Beethoven, a man with the sights for beauty on the musical side even though he does not have sight or the sense of hearing, an inspiration he is even with his irony.…

    • 1040 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hearsay can be defined as the information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is generally not accepted in court. The general rule is that all relevant evidence are prima facie admissible, except for hearsay and opinion. However, under the Evidence Act 1950, there are basically some exceptions to the general rule regarding to hearsay evidence. Among the exceptions are sections 32, 33, 34, 35, 38 and 73A of the said Act1. Apart from the Evidence Act, there are also exceptions under Common law which is known as the Res Gestae principle.…

    • 1373 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays