I don't buy that they couldn't do anything sooner. C'mon: they're lawyers. They find loopholess faster than a fly finds poop.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
Well,they said that even if they had talked, it would have been in-admissible in court, and thus wouldn't have helped the poor guy at all. In fact, it might have screwed him more, because they couldn't do what they are doing now, as the evidence would have already been refused by the court.
I guarrantee this will be on an episode of Law&Order next season.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I think they already did that, but with a twist.
In that episode, Jaimie Ross (former ADA) represented a client who confessed to her that he commited some crime that some poor schmoe was going to death row for. Jaimie of course couldn't divulge that source without "compromising" her client. So she somehow "leaked" this information, hoping it gets somewhere. This of course was secondary to the main plot in which McCoy tries a former prosecutor who deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence which would have proved the poor schmoe's innocence and securing a death penalty conviction.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd shoot all involved, then tell a priest in the confessional- just for some ironic, non-admissible payback.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I wonder... Is a priest allowed to divulge your confessions if you were never baptized? That is, do you have to be an official Catholic to get the secret confession privilege?
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
In confession, many times you & the priest aren't acquainted, or can even see each other. There's not exactly a secret Catholic handshake to give either, so there's no way for the priest to know if you're a Catholic or not, but I don't think he would care about that anyway. So even if you did divulge something big, it's doubtful the priest could follow up on it even if he wanted to.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I could so see the FBI setting up a extended-record reel-to-reel in the confessional behind a cardboard silouette of a priest.
Or HBO for that matter: "Next on HBO- New York Confessional" Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Anyway, the priest *could* divulge secrets; I mean, it's discouraged, but he wouldn't exactly get excommunicated for it...would he? (I'm aware that secular law says he can't be subpoenaed for it.)
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Actually, a priest is required by law (both civil and clerical) to report a confession of a murder to the police.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Doesn't mean that's admissible in court though, does it?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I believe so. A priest is one of those public notary type peoples or whatever.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I don't know what the law is here, but in the states, priest-penitent rights are protected. There have been some cases regarding that fact.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I mean, it's discouraged, but he wouldn't exactly get excommunicated for it...would he?"
Apparently, yes. He would.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hearsay anyway- anything said through that screen would get kicked out.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
When I was a pious lad, I recall the local priest had kept the confession of a guy who had committed a crime for roughly 20 years, until the man's death, when he finally came out with the truth. So yeah, in the US, they do respect priest/sinner confidentiality.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Hearsay anyway- anything said through that screen would get kicked out."
My understanding is that it's not hearsay when the person who said it is the defendant.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I think the most ironic thing is that all of this would not have happened if the hapless but innocent defendant was given the death penalty. You heard them, they would have divulged that information if he had been condemmed, but a life sentence became exactly that, a life sentence.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Hearsay anyway- anything said through that screen would get kicked out."
My understanding is that it's not hearsay when the person who said it is the defendant.
This would be the word of a witness that heard a confession through a screen without seeing the person speaking- not hearsay exactly, just real shakey- probably inadmissable- testimony from the priest. A lawyer could argue the screen muffled the defenant's voice, the screen prevents positive identification, etc.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
There's usually a non-screened side to the confessional booth, too. But, yeah, the defense attorney could make the "are you sure it was my client?" argument. I'm just saying that a statement made by the defendant wouldn't be thrown out on the grounds of hearsay.