[Crime Shows] Why do the Genius Detectives stand there explaining to their suspect their entire theory as to why the suspect is guilty?
The police don't need to do that. They can just arrest them. Explanations like that are for court. Furthermore... confessions as evidence are basically worthless hearsay. Why does it seem like every investigation hinges entirely on revealing what happened to the suspect to get their confession?
Without tangible evidence any competent D.A. would tear that case to shreds and the accused may as well have never been arrested.
Posted Mar 18, 2021, 4:49 AM UTC · edited
420
It's an interrogation tactic. IIRC there's an episode of CSI where through a process of lying about being able to pull fingerprints off a bag of drugs found in a toilet they convince a dealer that they knew he threw them in the toilet. He is so distraught over the thought that he confesses. Unless there's some amazing oversight in evidence a suspects confess is enough. Longer trials and court proceedings really aren't needed with a signed confession and guilty plea. Stroking your own ego by laying out the crime and the attempt to hide in detail based off evidence you've already collected is stupid but could be harmless if the DA is already going to arrest and press charges. The goal is to convince the suspect that they're hopelessly caught and to just confess and give up. A few show even show how bad this is as a tactic when the suspects and their lawyers get evidence thrown out. The defense knows from super genius that the entire case hinged on that and knew just what to work on to get thrown out. If you have an orgy of evidence losing a few pieces isn't terrible however and they tried to shorten the conviction process. It's just when it's a tenuous piece of evidence that it's a terrible idea to tell the suspect how wrong you're understanding of what happened was.
[deleted]
I am confused. How is a confession hearsay?
[deleted]
That is still not the same as hearsay. And not every confession is a result of police abuse. After giving a confession, the defendant still has the chance to speak to a lawyer, plead innocence by extraordinary causes etc. A confession isn't meaningless but it is evidence. It isn't hearsay.
It's literally the second line of the Miranda warning. Police can use anything you say to them as evidence against you in court, as long as it was obtained legally.
It is very different. But if you don't have reliable legal counsel and a DA that's not as ethically or impartially minded you'd be surprised what can happen. People have been convicted for others dreaming they committed a crime and others have convicted simply because the police fudged information and no one double checked. Obtaining a confession under duress requires a lawyer to prove it was falsely obtained or a judge to consider it suspect. If you're sadled with a public defender that's given up on your case, a confession you signed under duress and a police station with no working cameras the day you signed it it's pretty difficult to prove your case.
[deleted]
District attorney. Basically the states/city/county's lawyer. Usually elected publicly. A public defender is a lawyer provided by the court to the defense at no cost. This is for united states courts and I'm not a legal expert so may be wrong with some details.
Have you seen Making a Murderer? One of the guys is seemingly in prison based solely on a confession which some Seventh Circuit judges assert was obtained under duress.
You also seem to be under the impression hearsay is worthless. Inculpatory hearsay is admissible so a confession is evidence regardless, and there are countless other exceptions which allow hearsay evidence.
Sure people can lie or be mistaken, but you can't disregard all witness testimony based on that, the lawyers need to establish or critique the credibility. Until about 40 years ago with the dawn of DNA testing and CCTV, that's all the evidence there could really be if the criminal wore gloves.
[deleted]
Detectives are allowed to use subterfuge / deceit to obtain a confession. Not classified as under duress.
Almost all evidence is hearsay. The belief that all hearsay is inadmissible is something created in the media.
Things said to a cop, are almost always admissible even before arrest or Miranda warning.
And duress is a higher bar to reach than you think.
Video citation: you may not agree with the topic, but the discussion of the nature and rules of evidence is on point.
https://youtu.be/4xGluGlQgdA
[deleted]
Circumstantial is not the lesser form of evidence contrary to common understanding. The movies, and people who don't actually know how to argue and don't actually know the law, have created this mythology that circumstantial evidence is inferior or second class.
It's simply not the case.
One of the problems that are actively encountered during jury trials is of course that the jury has watched too much CSI or other crime scene procedurals. They bring in a bunch of faux expertise and imagine that their understanding of the law matches the laws understanding of the law.
That's part of the reason that lay advice is not the same as proper legal advice, and it's also part of the reason that people admitted before one bar may not be willing to come and about the law in front of another.