2007-12-30 03:46:06 · 9 answers · asked by Stefanie t 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
the defendant is charged for premidated murder in the first degree and might have been drunk at the time of the confession.
(this is for a mock trial im doing in my law studies class)
2007-12-30 03:55:40 · update #1
This is difficult to answer and can not be given a simple yes or no. There are varying degrees of intoxication and the ultimate decision of whether or not his confession is valid would be left up to a Walker Hearing to be determined by a judge. The officer taking the confession would need to establish that the defendant knew what he was talking about and that the alcohol did not affect his ability to understand the officer's questions. Many factors come into play such as whether the defendant was in custody while being questioned or was he even questioned at all. Maybe it was a spontaneous utterance. Was he Mirandised? A prosecutor certainly will try to get it in especially if it is all they have but ultimately it comes down to a judge on it's admissibility.
2007-12-30 04:14:51 · answer #1 · answered by chill out 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A lawyer can try to use any statement. The most common objection to doing so is "hearsay," which is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the the matter asserted - or the truth of the words which were spoken. There are exceptions around hearsay and one is an admission by a party. Defendant can always rebut the statement by stating "i was drunk," said it for some other reason. But important here is that a criminal defendant can not be compelled to testify against himself....so, if Def, is in a criminal matter and is not going to testify then the statement should be kept out because if it is against his interest it would be considered testimonial evidence against him.
2007-12-30 11:52:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it- as long as it can be proven that they were actually over the legal limit at the time the staement was made (was there a breathalizer test taken before or after the statement was made?).
If it can be proven that the person was incapacitated at the time the the statement was made, it is like saying that the person "WAS NOT of sound body and mind" at the such statement was made.
(P.S: I hate dirty cops and lawyers just like everybody else!)
2007-12-30 11:52:50 · answer #3 · answered by cyruswendydevo 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, intoxication is not a viable legal excuse for any action, agreement or consensually reached understanding. Otherwise drunk drivers would get off because they were drunk at the time.
2007-12-30 11:49:46 · answer #4 · answered by Way 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
drunk to what degree?
the attorney is bound by a code of ethics to divulge certain things?
the extent of which layes on the attorney and his decision making process to divulge client information especially when drunk?
HAVING WORKED FOR ATTORNEYS FOR 15 YEARS, IT IS AN ETHICAL PROBLEM THAT COULD BE SAID ON ONE HAND OH WELL HE WAS DRUNK AND ON ANOTHER YOU WERE WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?
2007-12-30 12:15:03 · answer #5 · answered by ahsoasho2u2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Errrahhh-Erraaahhhh... Yes!
That is why I waited 24 hrs after that Mary-jo thing.
Ted Kennedy
2007-12-30 11:49:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you are read your Miranda rights and they say "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" They do mean it!!!!!! Drunk or not!!!
2007-12-30 11:51:49 · answer #7 · answered by shootingstars957 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
had the defendent already been given his rights? then yes
2007-12-30 11:48:36 · answer #8 · answered by Jo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no you could get in a lot of trouble for that if its false
2007-12-30 11:48:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋