QUESTION

In 2007, John Couey was tried and convicted for the murder of Jessica Lunsford in a Miami-Dade County courtroom. He was convicted even though his confession was ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. Research his case. Why was his confession thrown out? Do you agree with the judge’s decision to throw out the confession in this case? What is the logic in releasing a suspect who has confessed to a crime under circumstances that prohibit the use of that admission, when the police know that person committed the crime? Is this justice? Explain.

ANSWER

1. Introduction

Confession evidence is perhaps the most damning type of evidence used against the accused in criminal trials. Indeed, the reliability and importance of confessions in criminal trials are universally emphasized in both academic literature and case law. A confession may be a significant piece of evidence, or in some cases may be the only evidence, that is used by the prosecution to secure a conviction. This fact alone is significant given the high number of criminal cases which never see the inside of a trial or the Crown Court. And yet, despite the seemingly damning nature of the confession in criminal trials, confession evidence can quite easily be excluded. For example, while section 76 (2) (a) of Pace states that ‘no such confessions given out of court shall be admitted in evidence’, section 76 (2) (b) has been drawn very widely to include within the scope of the section those confessions which are made at any time whilst the accused is ‘in the custody of a person in authority’, meaning that the confession cannot be admitted if it is obtained when ‘the accused… was being questioned’, without establishing that the accused was not oppressed, ‘that the confession was not obtained by oppression’ and importantly, ‘the confession is reliable’. This essay examines the reasons why, despite the seemingly imposing weight of confessions in criminal trials, their admissibility is substantially controlled by the judiciary. It will first speak to the definition of a confession and then move to outline the reasons why confessions are ‘deliberately created’ – before discussing the reasons why confessions are both given and then subsequently discredited as inadmissible in the course of the criminal trials.

1.1 Definition of a confession

A confession is a statement made by a suspect in a criminal case that is adverse to that person. Confessions are an exception to the general rule that statements made outside the witness box by persons who are not called witnesses are hearsay and therefore inadmissible as evidence. This is because, in the eyes of the law, confessions are treated as being a very reliable form of evidence. This is reflected in the case of R v. Gilchrist where it was held that to amount to a confession, the statement must either acknowledge in terms of the offense or some material element of the offense or disclose circumstances adversely affecting the accused. For a statement to be considered a confession it must also be relevant as to the matter in issue in the proceedings. In other words, there must be specific factual content to the statement as opposed to mere comment. For example, in the case of R v. Cootam, the defendant was a serving prisoner. He was overheard by the prison officer responsible for monitoring telephones stating he had to be careful about what was said because his phone calls were being monitored and he had already provided three statements which amounted to a confession. At trial, it was subsequently held that these statements were admissible as they all included an admission that the defendant made telephone calls, that those calls were being monitored, and that the defendant was aware that his calls were being monitored. This is to show that certain criteria must be fulfilled for a statement to be considered a confession.

1.2 Importance of confessions in criminal trials

So now that we understand exactly what a confession is, we will now consider the importance of confessions in criminal trials. Confessions have always been held in high esteem by the legal system, and have traditionally been considered the “queen of proofs” and more convincing of one’s guilt than of any other kind of evidence. This is underscored by the experience throughout the history of those who have suffered the dire and sometimes fatal consequence of admitting to a crime. For example, in the 16th and 17th centuries in England, torture was legal and confessions were routinely beaten or wrenched out of prisoners. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the law has until recently placed little importance on distinguishing between different kinds of confessions. Writing in 1949, learned authors Cornish and Clarke stated that there had been “relatively few meaningful distinctions” between kinds of confessions and that it was only in the 20th century that the judiciary recognized “the relevance of their quality as evidence”. Despite developments in law and forensic science, modern life has seen further examples of confessions being made for a variety of motives: gaining notoriety, wanting to upset others, or, as in the case of John Mark Karr in 2006 as part of a fantasy, some confessions have been made purely for the celebrity status they will attract. All of these factors suggest that confessions are not the holy grail when it comes to determining the guilt of an accused person and that placing such great importance on them may have led to serious miscarriages of justice over the years. The next section of my article will examine the rules and procedures encompassing the admissibility or inadmissibility of different kinds of confession within a criminal trial.

2. The Case of John Couey

2.1 Background of the case

2.2 Reasons for the inadmissibility of Couey’s confession

3. Arguments for Excluding Inadmissible Confessions

3.1 Protecting the defendant’s rights

3.2 Ensuring a fair trial

3.3 Preventing coerced confessions

4. Arguments against Excluding Inadmissible Confessions

4.1 The importance of obtaining the truth

4.2 Public safety concerns

5. The Logic of Releasing a Confessed Suspect

5.1 Legal restrictions on the use of confessions

5.2 Presumption of Innocence

5.3 The burden of proof on the prosecution

6. Evaluating the Judge’s Decision

6.1 Analysis of the judge’s reasoning

6.2 Consideration of the evidence presented

6.3 The impact on the outcome of the trial

7. Justice and the Exclusion of Confessions

7.1 Balancing the rights of the accused and the interests of justice

7.2 The role of the jury in determining guilt or innocence

7.3 Implications for the criminal justice system

Examining the John Couey Case: The Controversial Ruling on Confessions and Justice in the Legal System

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

 

^{"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you "A" results."}