Confessions and Admissions Essay

In such matters, the accused person owns up and gives self-incriminating statement that places him/her at the center of the criminal liability. No further investigations are required in such cases. For instance, a theft suspect who agrees to refund $500 that was stolen has offered an admission and not a confession. While it is reasonable to conclude that the suspect who agrees to reimburse the stolen sum demonstrates a sense of guilt, there are some rear occasions where a completely innocent person can agree to take such an action. The universal principle of admission does not directly link the suspect to personal responsibility of committing a crime. There are two landmark cases on confessions; they include Brown v Mississippi and Chambers v Florida.

Brown v Mississippi This is a 1936 Supreme Court landmark decision which affirms that involuntary confession that has been obtained by the police as result of violent means is against the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore inadmissible. The three suspects namely Arthur Ellington, , Henry Shields, Ed Brown had been arrested and accused for the murder of a white planter called Raymond Stuart in Kemper County, Mississippi. During the trial stage, the prosecution evidence relied on the defendants confessions. However, the prosecution witnesses freely objected that the suspects only confessed after being subjected to torture and brutal beatings. They were denied their Miranda Rights and no one informed them on their rights to remain silent. After persistent denials, the suspects would later confess to the crime leading to their conviction.

Their appeal at the Florida Court of Appeals was quashed on the basis that the trial jury had relied on voluntary confessions. At the Supreme Court, the judges ruled in favor of the defendants thus overturning their convictions. In the wisdom of the court, the court found that the confessions were evidently compelled thus their inadmissibility. The accused had sought to seek the services of an attorney even after the police had read to him his Miranda Rights. The police denied to grant his requests and proceeded to utilize the accused’s previous confessions in the trial process. The Supreme Court held that the previous confessions became null and void immediately when the accused requested to seek further legal advice. In United States v Henry, the defendant was convicted for bank robbery by the trial court.

However, the evidence admitted by the court was based on the witness statement of a paid FBI informant whom Henry had confessed incriminating remarks to. The phrase Miranda Rights originated from the case Miranda v Arizona. Miranda who had been arrested following the kidnapping of kid was treated as a prime suspect due to the circumstantial evidence. He was held in police custody where he was subjected to police interrogations. Although, he willingly signed the statements he had earlier offered, his counsel would later suppress the admissions and confessions. It was apparent that the police did not inform the defendant about his rights prior to the interrogations. The identifications can take place in form of lineups, showups, photographs, or computerized system.

Identification procedure can only be conducted by an independent administrator. The eyewitness identification must also be uniform, fair, and backed by verifiable revisions. In State v Francois, the court ruled that the identification procedure must meet the set standards otherwise it would be concluded as misidentification. The identification procedures may encounter problems or errors due to the witness’ stress or anxiety, incapacitation of the human memory, witness may focus on weapons as opposed to the identity of the suspect, and racial identifications may also be compromised. , Wixted, J. T. , Mickes, L. , & Gronlund, S. D. A Comprehensive Analysis of the History of Interrogation Law, with Some Shots Directed at Miranda v. Arizona. Maclin, T. The Right to Silence v. The Fifth Amendment.