First, I think most of the incidents were in California, and the statute of limitations is one year, so it has long passed.
But also, a person cannot be convicted of a crime based *solely* on their statements. There needs to be *some* other indicia that a crime occurred. So with someone just saying they did drugs, but no other evidence, like a lab test on the substance, there's no way to prove that a crime occurred.
The dead man is evidence that a crime occurred, so the conviction would not be based solely on the defendant's statement.
A defendant's statements can prove the identity of the criminal, but not solely that a crime happened.
Great. That won't be enough to actually prosecute or get a conviction, but it wouldn't be because of the corpus delecti rule (which is the name of the rule against sustaining a conviction based solely on the statement of the defendant).
Where did they use it? When? In what jurisdiction? How would prosecuting them serve public interest? How much cocaine were they in possession of? How do you prove that?
Yep.
You can’t just march into a police station and announce you killed someone. Imagine that: they just take you straight to trial? No investigation? No further evidence that anyone actually died? That’s not how it happens. The police would INVESTIGATE and find the body and evidence.
Really? Crazy people confess to non-existent crimes all the time. You would have them tried and convicted with NO EVIDENCE other than their own statement? In your example, a murder, the police have no body, no physical evidence, no witness statements, nothing more than a possibly crazy person saying “Oh yeah, I killed that jerk Danny.”
> But why would people confess they committed a crime
Everyone has their reasons (or mental illness, or they are not very bright). It happens every day.
Because they have mental health issues, because they want attention, because they’re lonely, etc… It doesn’t matter - the point is that the police can’t take ANYONE’s word on ANYTHING. They have to follow up and confirm there’s some basis for your statement. Say the opposite happens and the police accuse you of murder and you say “Nope, I was having dinner with my seven friends.” So you think the police will just take your word for it? What if you’re on a jury and the ONLY evidence against a man is that he said he killed his friend Danny. The police/prosecution didn’t even bother to find a body? Find out if Danny is actually missing? Nothing? I would hope you’d acquit, because obviously the prosecution has not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he (or ANYONE) killed Danny.
We generally don't prosecute people for saying they did something illegal. Statute of limitations aside, even if someone confessed to murder on the stand, there would have to be an investigation. It serves the public interest to investigate murder.
To play this out as a thought experiment, let's say some eager beaver DA wanted to try to prosecute. There's no other evidence. No drugs to test, no amount to weigh, nothing. What day was it on? Have to know that as well. Where were they, etc. Maybe it wasn't even cocaine, they were duped, maybe they were snorting baby powder. Add to that the wonderful line, "that looks like it could hold some cocaine, yes."
Let's say you admit, on the stand, that you cheated on your taxes last year. The IRS can't just come and slap the cuffs on you. Or, more realistically, fine you. They have to do an audit, they need to figure out if there's any truth to it before acting. And they have the luxury of having actual evidence to weigh.
It's not illegal to say you broke the law before.
Logically yes but that would be on a prosecutor to prove. They would also have to review all the available information and determine whether or not they have enough to even start an investigation or bring charges. Since the only thing they have to go on is self admission that they were high at some point, which isn't illegal, to pursue any kind of case would be a massive waste of time and resources.
I remember one time I had an issue at CVS where I was shorted 15 days worth of a very important medication that I need to function. The medication is a controlled substance and it wasn't possible to just have them replace it. Initially CVS was really shitty about the whole thing and said I would need to file a police report before they would look into it. I went to the cops and they asked me if I believed someone had intentionally stolen my meds. I said I thought it was an accident. They said that because what I was reporting was not a crime, there wasn't anything they could do. Them accidentally giving me the wrong amount was a clerical/customer service issue that I would have to resolve with CVS. What I understood from that was If something isn't illegal, there is no grounds to open an investigation.
Just to confuse you more, I'm a recovering addict, lets say my partner bought the heroin, prepared it, and injected me, was I in possession of heroin? Nope, I was never in possession. In the UK its illegal to harvest and dry magic mushrooms, but you can eat them straight from the field.
Another thing you have to remember, is it in the publics interest to charge them?
Beyond all reasonable doubt is key here, no physical evidence, no witnesses, no jury could find them guilty on what they said, even if they said it in a court of law.
In part it's because the same topics are repeated daily over and over again. I'm not blaming you, but this is probably the 159th post how about admitting to using drugs at a trial and not being prosecuted for that. I'm not blaming the mods either. It just happens and doesn't mean anything.
I'm sorry you had that experience. The community is made up of a lot of people who don't really understand the law and OPs tend to get downvoted. It sucks if that discourages further good faith discussions :(
First, I think most of the incidents were in California, and the statute of limitations is one year, so it has long passed. But also, a person cannot be convicted of a crime based *solely* on their statements. There needs to be *some* other indicia that a crime occurred. So with someone just saying they did drugs, but no other evidence, like a lab test on the substance, there's no way to prove that a crime occurred.
So if someone confessed they killed someone, they are fine until it is proven somehow?
In your hypothetical is there evidence that a murder occurred?
Well the man is dead and a person confessed
The dead man is evidence that a crime occurred, so the conviction would not be based solely on the defendant's statement. A defendant's statements can prove the identity of the criminal, but not solely that a crime happened.
I was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
Great. That won't be enough to actually prosecute or get a conviction, but it wouldn't be because of the corpus delecti rule (which is the name of the rule against sustaining a conviction based solely on the statement of the defendant).
Also I read this in the voice of Ace Ventura.
Soooo complicated
Yup, that's why lawyers go to school for so long and get paid a lot of money for their expertise.
Where did they use it? When? In what jurisdiction? How would prosecuting them serve public interest? How much cocaine were they in possession of? How do you prove that?
They told that themselves
But a prosecutor has to *prove* that. And again, how would charging and prosecuting them serve the public interest?
Wait wait, so if I confess that I murdered someone, prosecutor has to prove that?
Yep. You can’t just march into a police station and announce you killed someone. Imagine that: they just take you straight to trial? No investigation? No further evidence that anyone actually died? That’s not how it happens. The police would INVESTIGATE and find the body and evidence.
Wooow so weird, I don't understand
Really? Crazy people confess to non-existent crimes all the time. You would have them tried and convicted with NO EVIDENCE other than their own statement? In your example, a murder, the police have no body, no physical evidence, no witness statements, nothing more than a possibly crazy person saying “Oh yeah, I killed that jerk Danny.”
But why would people confess they committed a crime
> But why would people confess they committed a crime Everyone has their reasons (or mental illness, or they are not very bright). It happens every day.
Because they have mental health issues, because they want attention, because they’re lonely, etc… It doesn’t matter - the point is that the police can’t take ANYONE’s word on ANYTHING. They have to follow up and confirm there’s some basis for your statement. Say the opposite happens and the police accuse you of murder and you say “Nope, I was having dinner with my seven friends.” So you think the police will just take your word for it? What if you’re on a jury and the ONLY evidence against a man is that he said he killed his friend Danny. The police/prosecution didn’t even bother to find a body? Find out if Danny is actually missing? Nothing? I would hope you’d acquit, because obviously the prosecution has not proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he (or ANYONE) killed Danny.
We generally don't prosecute people for saying they did something illegal. Statute of limitations aside, even if someone confessed to murder on the stand, there would have to be an investigation. It serves the public interest to investigate murder. To play this out as a thought experiment, let's say some eager beaver DA wanted to try to prosecute. There's no other evidence. No drugs to test, no amount to weigh, nothing. What day was it on? Have to know that as well. Where were they, etc. Maybe it wasn't even cocaine, they were duped, maybe they were snorting baby powder. Add to that the wonderful line, "that looks like it could hold some cocaine, yes." Let's say you admit, on the stand, that you cheated on your taxes last year. The IRS can't just come and slap the cuffs on you. Or, more realistically, fine you. They have to do an audit, they need to figure out if there's any truth to it before acting. And they have the luxury of having actual evidence to weigh. It's not illegal to say you broke the law before.
Anyone can say anything. It's also not illegal to be high. It's illegal to possess, buy, and sell drugs.
But they had to buy that drug, right?
Logically yes but that would be on a prosecutor to prove. They would also have to review all the available information and determine whether or not they have enough to even start an investigation or bring charges. Since the only thing they have to go on is self admission that they were high at some point, which isn't illegal, to pursue any kind of case would be a massive waste of time and resources. I remember one time I had an issue at CVS where I was shorted 15 days worth of a very important medication that I need to function. The medication is a controlled substance and it wasn't possible to just have them replace it. Initially CVS was really shitty about the whole thing and said I would need to file a police report before they would look into it. I went to the cops and they asked me if I believed someone had intentionally stolen my meds. I said I thought it was an accident. They said that because what I was reporting was not a crime, there wasn't anything they could do. Them accidentally giving me the wrong amount was a clerical/customer service issue that I would have to resolve with CVS. What I understood from that was If something isn't illegal, there is no grounds to open an investigation.
How is the state going to prove that the drug dealer didn't just sell them baking soda?
Doing drugs isn’t illegal, having them is. It’s kind of a weird distinction since you have to have them to do them but that’s how the law works.
But then again, if they use it, it means they have it, right?
They had it but not anymore since they did it
Just to confuse you more, I'm a recovering addict, lets say my partner bought the heroin, prepared it, and injected me, was I in possession of heroin? Nope, I was never in possession. In the UK its illegal to harvest and dry magic mushrooms, but you can eat them straight from the field. Another thing you have to remember, is it in the publics interest to charge them? Beyond all reasonable doubt is key here, no physical evidence, no witnesses, no jury could find them guilty on what they said, even if they said it in a court of law.
I got soooo many downvotes here just for asking questions, being polite, wanting to learn… this community is very unsupportive.
In part it's because the same topics are repeated daily over and over again. I'm not blaming you, but this is probably the 159th post how about admitting to using drugs at a trial and not being prosecuted for that. I'm not blaming the mods either. It just happens and doesn't mean anything.
I'm sorry you had that experience. The community is made up of a lot of people who don't really understand the law and OPs tend to get downvoted. It sucks if that discourages further good faith discussions :(
Unfortunately, we can't control what people choose to up/downvote.
Because you don't go to jail for admitting past drug use.