Question regarding proof admissible in court

Question regarding proof admissible in court
0

So basically, if I’m a traffic stop and my suspect says “Well I just shot 8 people.”, would that statement be admissible proof in court and should that suspect be arrested for those offences?

Opinions down below people, first post so sorry if this doesn’t sound right.

Interesting question. It would be admissible in the county, so go ahead with that. On the other hand, no Supreme Court ruling has covered whether being pulled over counts as ‘detainment’ in regards to Miranda rights (correct me if I’m wrong). Also, I doubt the DOJ would ever prosecute someone for saying they shot 8 people as it’s pretty vague and leaves room for interpretation easily defendable by one of my PD bois.
Anyways, go ahead in the county but I wouldn’t take it to court.

Thanks for the reply, and I think you’re completely right about the DOJ part, but if someone were to sue you for false arrest because you arrested them for saying that, do you think their statement could be used as proof in court for the arrest?

The burden for proving false arrest lies on the person claiming the false arrest, you don’t have to prove that anything is true. The Miranda rights, contrary to popular belief, only apply to court cases, so they would have no basis to sue you for false arrest.

Okay thanks, I’m not too familiar with the FS legal system.

I would figure any decent defense attorney would ride the lack of Miranda to high heaven until it became a precedent. This is one of those things where I have to pull out the Latin, so I have but two words: corpus delicti, or “the body of crime.” That, in most legal systems, requires a guilty act (actus reas), a criminal perpetrator, and a culpable mental state. Just saying “I killed a man” means nothing if law enforcement can’t find a body, weapon, etc. So while saying you committed a murder would be grounds for detainment, unless some indication that a murder actually occurred is present, it would likely be thrown out in court.

Great question though!

4 Likes

@Skye_Jones You’ve taken (or are taking) Criminal Law/Justice right? Anything you’d add to the above?

In Firestone, it definitely wouldn’t be admissible in court. We don’t have any spontaneous declarations/utterances clause, so you can quite literally say anything while detained before your rights have been read to you and it can’t be held against you in court.

Do note that probable cause (what is necessary to arrest) is a LOT less of a burden than beyond a reasonable doubt (what is necessary to convict), however.

Now, as for in real life:

Danny is correct that a confession like this, though it would be admissible in real life, would likely not be enough to secure a conviction without supplementary evidence. If there is no body, murder weapon, or other form of physical evidence, then more often than not a confession alone will not result in a guilty verdict.


To answer your question:

I would say you can definitely consider arresting them at that point. They only need to be read their rights for that confession to be admissible in court – they can still have it used against them for an arrest without their rights being read.

tl;dr
For an arrest, it is fine.
For a conviction in a court of law, it is not.

Skye Jones
District Court Justice

3 Likes

In theory, as it is in real life, the suspect is giving a voluntary confession without needing to be mirandized. The suspect is NOT in custody and is not being asked guilt seeking questions. The Miranda equation has not been achieved. That’s how it works in most states in real life, however, here in Firestone, Skye explained it well.

Holy moly thats alot, thanks for taking your time to respond and I guess that answers my question.

I also meant that if a false arrest case was brought against you in court for making that arrest, if that statement would be enough to save you.

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.