Re:Illinois first state to tell police they can't lie to min...
by dragonwriter on Friday July 16, 2021 @12:52PM
(#27858244)
> IMHO, if a judge hears "well he told me to lie so I did", the whole interrogation ought to be thrown out as ineligible.
So, the defendant saying those magic words should automatically erase any statements the defendant made, whether or not the magic words are true? Or should perhaps, both the claim of inducement and the other statements remain in evidence, with the trier of fact deciding on the weight to give each?
Re:Illinois first state to tell police they can't lie to min...
by lhorie on Friday July 16, 2021 @01:00PM
(#27858356)
IANAL but my understanding is that there are specific criteria for what is admissible and what isn't. For example, there are very specific heuristics for determining whether something is hearsay. What I'm saying is that there should be a clear cut list of criteria regarding which circumstances are admissible (e.g. was the confession made freely or was there coercion/promises/negotiations/etc involved, was the conversation recorded/unadulterated, etc) and that this list should be properly followed to disqualify potential foul play, just as is done w/ hearsay.
I ran into a similar situation once: an officer wanted to hear a very specific thing from me, so he asked me a question, then interrupted me mid-sentence when he heard the substring he wanted (the full sentence was along the lines of "we were planning on doing X, but not for another 5 years", where the point of contention was whether they could prove whether I was planning on doing X immediately), never mind that I was explicitly explaining how his theory was all wrong.
Thankfully for me, this was with the Canada Border agency, which has an appeals process, and surely enough, when they read my side of the story, they overruled the officer in my favor.