Serious Legal Question

[Kain99]

I just saw the most disturbing thing on Court TV... The prosecution entered into evidence a taped interview with Christopher Dame taped the night that his wife died.

This gentleman was so incredibly intoxicated you could barely understand a word he said. He does seem to "sober up" when he finally figures out he's a suspect but even then..... barely audible.

Is it legal to hold an interview with someone beyond intoxicated? Second: How can that tape be entered into evidence?

Case History:

(Court TV) — The celebrate their 28th wedding anniversary, Christopher and Colleen Dame booked a room on Fort Myers beach. Though they didn't go far from their Florida home, the trip was just as much a celebration as an attempt to fix their troubled marriage.

But the romantic retreat came to a tragic end when 46-year-old Colleen Dame plunged five stories off a balcony to her death.

Although she and her husband were drinking that that day and night, prosecutors didn't believe the fatal fall was an accident. Christopher Dame, now 49, was charged with manslaughter, and faced 15 years in prison if convicted in a four-day trial that began Feb. 24, 2004.

 

[mainman]

Was he coerced in anyway? (I know, I watch way to much Court TV)

 

[crabcake]

depends ... if he confessed, i say "admit it". If he didn't, they should've splashed some coffee in his face to sober him up.

Wish I would have caught that episode. Sounds like a good case.

 

[Kain99]

Just got this little tid bit from an authority on Court TV....

Coerced Internalized Confession: This describes a hypothetical situation where the investigator convinces an innocent person that he is guilty of the crime even though the suspect has no recollection of committing it. These claims often, but not always, are made under circumstances in which the suspect's memory could have been impaired at the time the crime was committed, e.g., intoxication, epilepsy, multiple personality disorder.

 

[FancyBelle]

Anything you say can and will be held against you. Was he read his rights before questioning?

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by FancyBelle
Anything you say can and will be held against you. Was he read his rights before questioning?

Yeah but he was plastered! I felt that since the law states a woman can charge a man with rape if he has sex with her while she's intoxicated.... then it was outrageous that a statement could be taped and then used as evidence from an intoxicated person in a court of law.

 

[FancyBelle]

I think it makes a difference if he's just being questioned about the circumstances surrounding that evening or if he's under arrest as a suspect. I think if you call 4754040 and ask for the Duty Officer, you'll get an answer. I'd like to know the answer myself.

 

[Elle]

Is this all really something you saw on TV or are you researching

 

[crabcake]

Originally posted by tys_mommy
Is this all really something you saw on TV or are you researching

 

[FancyBelle]

Originally posted by tys_mommy
Is this all really something you saw on TV or are you researching

WHOOPS! Good point! You know for as young as you are, you have an EVIL mind!

 

[Elle]

So Kain, did you ever find the answer you were looking for

 

[donbarzini]

Any half-a$$ed lawyer will get that "confession" thrown out on appeal. To waive one's right to counsel, you must be able to give consent. To use the rape analogy mentioned earlier, a woman can not "give consent" if she is under the influence of any mind-altering substance. So while the lower court may admit the taped interview, it won't stand on appeal.

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by tys_mommy
So Kain, did you ever find the answer you were looking for

Why yes I did silly girl!

 

[Elle]

Originally posted by Kain99
Why yes I did silly girl!

Care to share in case anyone else wants to use that defense in the future, ummm, I mean anyone else was interested in following the case on Court TV?

 

[Warron]

The supreme court just let the conviction of an underage kid stand who confessed to a crime while being interviewed by police(for two hours) without a guardian or lawyer present or even a miranda warning.

Considering those under 18 are not legaly considered to have the state of mind to make complex decisions such as asking for a lawyer or to have their parents present (they were forced to wait outside by the police), I could not really see someone being drunk as being treated differently.

If the law expects a kid to know they can walk out on police during an interview if they are not under arrest, then I don't see much stopping a drunken confession from being used in court.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/scotus.juvenile.questioning.ap/index.html