Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime", which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true ...
The solicitor-general argued that religious confession was not protected from disclosure. He also took the point that in this case "the confession was not to the church nor required by any known ecclesiastical rule", but was made voluntarily to friends and neighbours. The court held that the evidence was rightly received (not protected).
For evidence to be admissible enough to be admitted, the party proffering the evidence must be able to show that the source of the evidence makes it so. If evidence is in the form of witness testimony, the party that introduces the evidence must lay the groundwork for the witness's credibility and knowledge.
Although a confession obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible, evidence obtained based on information in the confession is admissible. [28] For example, if police learn the identity of a witness through a confession that violates Miranda, the government may still use the witness's testimony at trial. [29]
Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).
The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay (an out of court statement) but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.
Anderson v. United States, 318 U.S. 350 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the violation of state law rendered the confession evidence inadmissible. If there is a "working arrangement" where state officials will violate the rights of the accused and federal officials will charge them federally, the fact ...
Confessions with multiple defendants [ edit ] The court held that if one of two persons, accused of having together committed the crime of murder, makes a voluntary confession in the presence of the other, without threat or coercion, the confession is admissible in evidence against both.