Re: Admissibility of Coerced confession

More | Report Post

On 12/28/05, Jeff wrote:
> To Jeff Does anyone have any thoughts on admissibility
of a
> confessed coerced during interrogation by Federal agenys?
Yes, part of the just-us system. You may look up cases where
a few honest Judges has up held maranda rights when
confessions has been coerced or forced. By decieving
practices and lies, or physical force --in which the
defendant is usually handcuffed and or 10 to one situation
where the victum-defendant is not in a position to fight
back. Cowardly as it is, it goes on all the time look at the
never ending law suits comming out of California in
Sacramento alone. Where also fALSE CONFESSIONS ARE OVER
LOOKED, EVEN ALLEGATIONS PERGURY BY POLICE OFFICERS EGNORED.
Not to mention cop happy judges who seem to promote this sort
of behavior. Even if in this seemingly backward town if a new
trial is permitted the prosecutor may-as they say- taint it
with mentioning the confession even after it was thrown out
for the purpose of having the jurors hear it and assume that
because IT WAS SAID IT MUST BE TRUE, not realizing the
circumstances of how it was obtained and getting a
conviction.It taught me that if I were a juror if I even
heard it was done in a deciving was or cohersed I would find
them not guilty and if people want to guard there rights they
perhaps sshold do the same until they get the message.Unless
we have enough honest lawers to fight for our constitutional
rights and jurors educated to this decieving practice, the
people we will be equal to a third world corrupt monarcy.
This could happen to anyone at any time. Michigan v. Tucker
(1974) Court reversed conviction. Don't seem too soon comming
to California especially if lawyers are fearfull of cop happy
Judges I have heard of and have seen myself. Judges who
recommend convictions based on false confessions even BEFORE
THE TRIAL> JURY TRIAL. JUST-US SYSTEM