Are the words of a state trooper credible in the court of law?

Question

This is in reference of the Chris McCowan trial.

Answer 1

I think it should be deemed as hear say and thrown out immediately. It is inadmissible evidence. They cannot accept this as a confession because first, his low IQ made him easily susceptible to coercion. He was coerced into confessing. Second, there is no proof he spoke the words he is said to have uttered and the wording and thought process are to complex for this defendant. He is to incompetent to be able to think of problems in logical progressions.

Answer 2

The credibility of a state trooper at a hearing or at trial is subject to whatever finding of truthfulness and weight the finder of fact (jury, or the judge if a bench trial) attributes to that testimony.

There is a jury instruction that states if you find a witness has committed perjury or lied, then you can strike all that witness's testimony. That sort of thing is up to the factfinder.

Answer 3

The court of law hearing your case will have to uphold and respect any relent and viable information from both parties. However, since a state trooper or any public servant (for that matter) has been "sworn" to duty - his or her account on a particular subject is commonly weighed accordingly (i.e. what they say is generally significant). This is not to say that mistakes are not made - and the officer's account on a given matter contradicts yours. Rather than, it goes to say that sometimes those mistakes may be unfavorable to you as a citizen.

Answer 4

The court will more often than not accept the word of a law enforcement officer as fact.

Answer 5

No matter how much a police officer may lie about a situation, in most cases, the courts will take their word over the defendant's. Been there, been done.

Answer 6

They carry much weight

Answer 7

NO