| Subject: corrupt cops...beware....feds are comin! |
Author:
al penny
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:35:51 08/13/11 Sat
“[W]here a person in authority makes an express or clearly implied promise of leniency or advantage for the accused which is a motivating cause of the decision to confess, the confession is involuntary and inadmissible as a matter of law (emphasis added).” People v. Boyde (1988) 46 Cal.3d 212, 238. As the Jimenez court reiterated, before a confession can be used against a defendant, the prosecution has the burden of proving that it was voluntary and was not the result of any form of compulsion or promise of reward. People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595, 602, citing People v. Trout, 54 Cal.2d 576; People v. Berve, 51 Cal.2d 286; People v. Jones (1944) 24 Cal.2d 601, 608; People v. Rogers (1943) 22 Cal.2d 787, 804-805; People v. Siemsen (1908) 153 Cal. 387, 394 [95 P. 863].) If a statement is found to be involuntary, the statement and other evidence derived from it are inadmissible for any purpose. Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 304-309. As the court explained in People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, 169-170, this standard applies to all incriminating statements whether they be confessions in the strict sense or only admissions.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 