Wow, this is the 100th page in the self-incrimination chapter!
The end is in sight.
100. Custody + Interrogation = Miranda
The Illustrated Guide to Law
The comic that teaches what the law is, how it really works, and why.
Wow, this is the 100th page in the self-incrimination chapter!
The end is in sight.
Could the statement be used to incriminate someone else? For example, since it can’t be used against Bob, could it be used against Synthcore?
“Used” as in testimony? Who is going to testify? I have a feeling that if the officer is on the stand and the testimony goes anything like “Chase said that…” The words “Objection” and “Hearsay” will be used by defense counsel in close proximity to each other.
No it cannot be used against someone else. That would be violating the sixth amendment rights of the accused to confront their accusers in court. The only way that any of Bob Chase’s statements could be used against anyone else would be if he testified against them in court, in person.
Ahem. Hearsay exceptions for: guy who said it is dead or unable to testify, guy who said it contradicted himself, etc. We could see this in court, we just have to try to get Bob to repeat himself first. (Unless I misrecall, of course, as I am neither lawyer nor law student.)
There’s also the excited-utterance exception, and the statement-against-penal-interest exception.
Ahem, yes. There are hearsay exceptions – I considered posting a link when I made my statement, but the thing that made me not do it was this observation: “Well, none of those things is remotely true.”
So I guess we can hope Bob’s lawyer is a total moron and doesn’t warn his client fourteen thousand times to say nothing connected to his currently-excluded testimony. Hey, it happens on Law & Order…
Never use the phrase “it happens on Law and Order” to suggest it happens in real life, unless you want the cool kids to laugh at you. ;p
Apparently my sarcasm was lost in the text.
This particular statement could not be introduced at trial to prove Synthcore’s guilt. “Chase told me Synthcore did it” is not admissible evidence. And for good reason — it’s not inherently reliable, and nobody would have a chance to challenge that testimony at trial. The prosecution would have to call Chase to the stand and have him testify to this directly at trial, if they wanted to use it.
The police officer might be allowed to testify that he heard this statement, but not to prove Synthcore’s guilt. He’d only be allowed to mention it to explain why he began looking at Synthcore in the first place. But the jury would have to be carefully instructed that the statement came in not for its truth, but merely for the fact that it was made.
Could his testimony be used to clear someone else? If Dr. Herring had been unlucky enough that it looked like she planned the crime, could this be used as evidence that it wasn’t her?