Admissibility of statements

[metallicat]

Scenerio: You arrest an individual on armed robbery, and upon meeting with his lawyers at the police station, he excersises his right to remain silent. He is then placed in a jail cell without his attorney present...an undercover police officer is inserted into the jail cell, and he engages the accused in conversation where he makes several incriminating remarks.

Was the suspects right to remain silent violated, and are his statements admissible in the case against him?

[EX_529]

I guess the key is to shut the frick up!

[jaunt10]

so is any place in a police station secure? i know most have video and audio surveillance (especially in the cells) and then they monitor your "one" phone call to maybe have you incriminate yourself. Still if you start talking to this undercover cop or whoever is in the cell or whoever you're talking to on the phone and you continue to replay your innocence can that be used in court? for the suspects defense i mean

[jaunt10]

thanks for the reply DC

[metallicat]

Yes, thank-you.

[oscarmitre]

Originally posted by DC Law
If you voluntaryily make statements, it can only hurt you. It doesn't help you if you keep insisting that you're innocent. That's already presumed at trial anyway.

As to the phone calls, I love it when I let them use the phone and they say stuff with me only a few feet away writing the report. The people they call usually want to know why they were arrested and oftentimes these rocket scientists will tell them the truth and admit straight up that they were doing wrong. My reports just get longer and better the more they talk. Remember--I'm not asking them any questions. They're talking freely to someone else and they know I'm right there. And still they incriminate themselves.

Aren't such statements considered to be hearsay?

[metallicat]

I am actually looking at a case for my Criminal Law class right now...I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly happened, but I will learn more tonight. If anyone is interested, here is the URL, beware, it is long:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-sc...ry=21161#disp0

[oscarmitre]

Not wanting to get off topic but further to my question concerning hearsay.

In my jurisdiction when I interview a suspect the evidence of our conversation (ie that it happened) is direct evidence given by me and therefore admissible but the content of the conversation (the truth meaning of the defendant's statements) is considered to be hearsay. It is admitted but only pursuant to a particular rule.

Due weight is given to the evidence. If the defendant admits it then of course it is given a lot of weight but if he or she refuses to admit it then it goes to my credibility.

In the latter case I am subjected to a voir dire hearing where the jury leaves the courtoom and I am cross-examined as to my veracity. After that "trial within a trial" the judge then decides whether to admit, some, all or none of my evidence when the jury comes back.

This is a very interesting thread, thank you for the information.

[metallicat]

Originally posted by DC Law
The accused was arrested on a charge of robbery and informed upon arrest of his right to counsel. At the police station, after consulting counsel, he advised the police that he did not wish to make a statement. The accused was then placed in a cell with an undercover police officer posing as a suspect under arrest by police. The officer engaged the accused in conversation, during which the accused made various incriminating statements implicating him in the robbery. Prior to trial, there was a voir dire to determine the admissibility of these statements. The judge held that the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and his right to remain silent asserted under s. 7 of the Charter had been violated and excluded the statements pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Crown offered no evidence, and the accused was later acquitted. The Court of Appeal set aside the accused's acquittal and ordered a new trial. The Court found that the police conduct did not violate the accused's right to counsel or his right to remain silent.

Held: The appeal should be allowed.



Basically, this guy did what we discussed above, and made incriminating statements to an undercover officer. These statements were the basis for his conviction. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal for the Yukon Territory affirmed the conviction. He appealed again and the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the decision of the trial and appelate courts and overturned the conviction.

This happened because Canada's laws regarding protection against self-incrimination are in this instance tighter than the American Constitution's First Amendment.

Yeah that is pretty interesting. I did however learn, that is is quite common for an actual cellmate of prisoners to squeel on guys...so it is unfortunate that a police officer cannot pose as a prisoner to get info; at least in Canada.

[rdp]

While in jail here, the only place that is a secure place which is not audio and video recorded is the attorney client room.

[oscarmitre]

Good point - it's an old saying that you can always ask one too many questions in cross-examination - looks like the defence are not going to fall for that one with you.

It's a pity that more cops weren't able to handle cross-examination constructively. We teach it on our Detective courses and have some pretty good criminal barristers come on the courses to share their experience but there's nothing like getting in the witness box and being put under cross-examination to gain experience. Unfortunately it takes most of us time and a lot of mistakes before we finally get the hang of it (I am going to save myself potential embarrassment and not discuss some of my worst clangers!).

Now our organisation is teaching general duties (patrol) officers much the same material on giving evidence that is given to those who wish to be detectives, it's a good move.

[Stump]

I absolutely HATE to testify.
The lawyers make me sit on my hands while I am testifying because otherwise my hands go shooting all over the place when I talk.