Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8] ]

Subject: coerced confessions and federal law Author: Al Penny [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:44:04 08/13/11 Sat In analyzing whether a defendant’s statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of his rights under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, courts go through a process that is described as a “weighing of the circumstances of pressure against the power of resistance of the person confessing.” Stein v. People of State of New York 346 U.S. 156, 185. “In determining whether a defendant’s will had been overborn in any particular case, the courts assess the totality of all of the surrounding circumstances – both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” People v. Cahill (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 296, 310-311, citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225-226. As the court emphasized in Cahill, the reason for excluding involuntary confessions is to provide the accused with an “essentially free and unconstrained choice” whether to confess. People v. Cahill (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 296, 311, citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 225-226. That freedom implies freedom from police conduct which is overreaching. Id. at 311, citing Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 163-164. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Re: coerced confessions and federal law WHAT THE HELL 12:06:20 08/13/11 Sat