Hearsay Evidence...

[Dr.Evil]

i'm helping a fellow board member with his trial and i have a question. the following scenario is far from what happened, but it's the part about evidence and hearsay that's the main focus.

scenario:

let's say i broke into someone's home and killed him. the police found no suspects, motives, or murder weapon at the crime scene. the next day they searched his home again and found a letter i wrote to him with my handwriting and fingerprints on there stating perfectly clear why i killed him and that i'm in fact the one who did it. this is the only evidence the police has. they have no way to back up what i said in the letter, just the letter itself. in the video taped interview i refuse to talk.

question:

now that they have the only evidence that links me to the crime and the motive for the crime. can they use this evidence in court? from what i've gathered from my research they can only use it if i were to testify on the stand. is this correct? the only other person that could testify to the letter would be the victim, but he's dead. i'm assuming that investigators can't introduce it into trial because they didn't actually write it or receive it, so it would be hearsay. is this correct?

maybe amublancechaser or someone else familiar with evidentiary law could give more input. thanks

 

[Nathan]

I don't know but I can bump it back up for ya. Uh, if he's in for murder then wouldn't it be prudent to be asking these questions to a lawyer?

 

[Doktor Bollix]

Jest to help you with your homework dude. That's an incriminating statement, could be anything - diary, journal etc. and if admissible is in the same evidentiary class as a confession. Confessions are one of numerous exceptions to the rule on hearsay. In particular, if the maker of a particular statement is refusing to testify, then hearsay evidence of that statement can be admitted. However, the statement in question must be in a document. Voila, your letter. Evidence, what a boring fucking subject. Can't help you with cases though, all that weed I smoked in school killed those brain cells.

 

[fifteyfive91]

Doktor Bollix was correct in saying that it could be admissible. Any incriminating statements can be admitted, but determining if they are admissible is important. The key here could be the search of the residence by the police. Simply being a crime scene does not give the police cart blanche to search every nook of the house. That depends on the case law and statutes in your jurisdiction though. This is a rather serious question that should be dealt with by a competent (key word) attorney. If your going to hire a criminal defense attorney make sure they are a former prosecutor or public defender. It's rare to find a competent criminal defense attorney who has not worked for the state at some point. Good luck.

 

[Baby Gorilla]

I suppose we're not talking "murder" here....

....let's say i broke into someone's home and killed him. the police found no suspects, motives, or murder weapon at the crime scene. the next day they searched his home again and found a letter i wrote to him with my handwriting and fingerprints on there stating perfectly clear why i killed him and that i'm in fact the one who did it. this is the only evidence the police has. they have no way to back up what i said in the letter, just the letter itself. in the video taped interview i refuse to talk....

Crime scenes are strange animals. Warrants aren't really needed if the dead guy was the only person living there. Looking for clues to a murder lets them search anywhere in and around the house without a warrant (as a general rule) because they're conducting an investigation. If someone else still lived there, they'd need consent or a warrant.

A letter you wrote is admissible in and of itself, it's weight as evidence is the real issue. Logically, what moron would commit a crime and leave no physical evidence to link him to the scene but then leave a letter admitting his guilt?

Now, if we're talking something else (say a friend was arrested for having 'roids and the letter was something you wrote asking him for X amount or saying you knew a buyer), that's a different matter. How did they find the letter? Is the "friend" still alive and backing it up? What are the rules of evidence in your state? You need a lawyer for all that stuff.

Any lawyer looking to help you out would challenge either (1) the legality of the search that discovered the letter, (2) the credibility of the letter itself--should someone believe you're dumb enough to admit to criminal wrongdoing in writing, and/or (3) the letter is damaging, but cannot--by itself--prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to uphold a conviction.

Also, hearsay is when a 3rd party testifies to something they were told by a party to something. If the cops talk to you about what Mary said Tom told her, it's inadmissible except for certain circumstances. If the cops talk to you about what YOU HEARD Tom say to Mary, that's not hearsay.

In written documents, a letter your dead friend wrote is not as damaging as a letter you wrote yourself.

 

[Doktor Bollix]

In the absence of any corroborating evidence, I'd be interested to know what they charged him with. I'm guessing this is steroid related *duh* and I'll guess he got hit with a bunch of conspiracy charges, and they are telling him he's going to jail for the rest of his life etc. Conspiracy is no joke in drug cases, but is usually a way of intimidating someone into becoming a snitch. If your friend keeps his cool and has a savvy attorney he should be OK.

 

[Dr.Evil]

ok, here´s some more detail about the real story.

the guy is charged with selling some stuff and the only evidence that he sold anything rests on the computer of a person who recently died in a drug overdose of a completely unrelated matter. the cops have a way of somewhat authenticating that my buddy was the one who wrote the things that were saved on the dead man´s computer. now the question is can they use it as evidence? i just can´t see who can testify to that if the defendent himself doesn´t get on the stand. can the investigator who found the computer evidence testify to that? i don´t see how he could since he was neither the recipient nor the producer of those documents. the contents of those documents can not be cross examined... but maybe i´m biased...

btw, this guy has a lawyer, but he is a lazy ass public defendent who just wants to get this trial over with and get paid. he doesn´t care about what the verdict is. i´m just trying to help an iron brother out.

 

[manny78]

depending on evidence and procedure law (may be different from State/country) yes it can be used as an evidence. Now it's all about the link between what's in the computer and your friend. If the link can clearly be established I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be used against him. This is where his lawyer should work. The link and the authenticity.

 

[Dr.Evil]

Now it's all about the link between what's in the computer and your friend. If the link can clearly be established I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be used against him.

yeah, we all wish defense lawyers would have at least half a brain sometimes, but it seems like more often than not they're actually working with the prosecution...

the authenticity isn't even really an issue because if the prosecutor is good it is a slam dunk on authenticity. there is almost no question that this guy wrote these documents.

i just don't see how the evidence will actually be introduced. the prosecutor can't just print it out and give it to the jurors. it has to come out somehow with someone's testimony (so i thought). the documents are strictly between the defendent and the dead person. anyone else testifying to this would be testifying to what they read or saw as a third party, thus it's hearsay... it's not a confession. maybe if one of the parties is dead it would be an exception to the hearsay rule

 

[manny78]

yeah, we all wish defense lawyers would have at least half a brain sometimes, but it seems like more often than not they're actually working with the prosecution...

the authenticity isn't even really an issue because if the prosecutor is good it is a slam dunk on authenticity. there is almost no question that this guy wrote these documents.

i just don't see how the evidence will actually be introduced. the prosecutor can't just print it out and give it to the jurors. it has to come out somehow with someone's testimony (so i thought). the documents are strictly between the defendent and the dead person. anyone else testifying to this would be testifying to what they read or saw as a third party, thus it's hearsay... it's not a confession. maybe if one of the parties is dead it would be an exception to the hearsay rule

electronic evidence is accepted today in the vaste majority of juridictions. Otherwise how would the cops bust all these net pedos ?