On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:36:32 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 28-1-2010 1:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Once a month I meet with our local police liason officer (in fact, I
>> meet with him tomorrow night) as part of our local community
>> organization.  He often will tell stories after the meeting to those
>> who are sticking around about the dumb things people confess to.
> 
> That is why a confession is not enough to convict here. That has to be
> backed up with independent evidence. Sure that rule is sometimes not
> followed, but that can lead to later complications for the police or the
> judge. How often it gets uncaught I don't know for obvious reasons.

That makes sense to me - and I think here in the US, if a defense 
attorney introduces reasonable doubt in spite of a confession, a 
conviction could be avoided, too.  For example, if a suspect confesses to 
something they didn't do, and the defense introduces a witness who gives 
undeniable evidence that the person couldn't have committed the crime, 
that would weigh pretty heavily for the jury.

And ISTR that a judge can overturn or set aside a jury's verdict if the 
judge determines that the jury convicted wrongly - though I don't think 
the judge can set aside a "not guilty" verdict.

Jim

Post a reply to this message