Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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 Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to suppress the evidence, stating that there was no violation of the due process clause. In the words of the Supreme Court: Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.
Part IV highlighted three relevant factors. First, the prosecution had emphasized in its opening argument that the confession was the most important evidence. Second, the credibility of Sarivola's wife Donna (who testified about the second confession) was severely undermined without the context and corroboration of the first confession.
Pages in category "United States confession evidence case law" The following 3 pages are in this category, out of 3 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
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]
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).
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by the use of force on the part of law enforcement cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.