how hard is it to claim confession under duress and for it to mean anything?
Printable View
how hard is it to claim confession under duress and for it to mean anything?
Based on the sheer number of people who make the claim, I'd surmise it isn't remotely difficult to make the claim. As for it meaning anything, that would largely be tied to the underlying facts of the case at hand; the case at hand being inadvertently omitted, any opinion would be rank speculation.
More information would be required to even remotely address such a complex and important question, though I appreciate the invitation to discuss it.
Oh dear, I'm not sure how this is going to go in the long run, but okay.
To discuss the specific legal consequences in a given situation, one would need to know the circumstances out of which the happenings arose. That is to say, anyone would require all the salient information which could bear on a discussion of the circumstances because such inquiries are necessarily fact intensive.
What facts specifically? That I cannot say because I have a complete lack of information on any facet of this case so I don't even know where to reasonably to start in terms of giving you a list of what more we'd need to know.
I suppose the best I can do is just say, at this moment, we'd need at least some information as opposed to the situation in which we find ourselves now: a complete lack of any information.
By the way, saying that:
1.) it wasn't you involved,
2.) you don't even know if it was supposed to be an interview, and
3.) they were yelling at him
really isn't information. It's akin to saying, "Yesterday, I went somewhere and saw some people. And yeah, that's what happened." Sure, it's "talking", but it provides no real information.
For instance, I have no reason to even suspect you were present at the event. I have no reason to believe that you were privy to any of the inner-workings of the situation. There is no good reason to call into question the --well, I presume these they people were police officers despite there being no suggestion they were-- yelling bit. I'm not aware of anything which specifically requires supposed police officers to at all times be civil and use moderate language and tone when interviewing someone as a matter of law. It might be departmental policy for reasons of PR, but that hardly rises to an issue of constitutional concern.
Simply because a police officer is rude doesn't mean there's some constitutional violation. As I was fond of saying to people, "I'm here to protect your ass, not kiss it."
Did he or she confess to something they did not do?
The defense can argue that the confession was false and made under duress, but that can be a tough case to make. As Ashman intimated, being rude or even obnoxious does not mean it is unlawful.
The defense can try to make a motion to suppress the confession on whatever grounds they think they can succeed ... Miranda, undue and unlawful duress, etc. The court will decide based upon the facts of the specific incident.
- Carl