Stang is right, cause the whole story at the table makes no sense. Wright tries to put it right, by taking the bloody shoeprints around the table as a proof that Soering stood behind Derek slitting his throat, but that is an obvious fairy tale because a) the bloody imprints are between the chair and the table. Everyone which isn't blind can realize it in the header pic of Wright's testimony (following blog entry) b) the shoe imprints are too small for Seering's feet, so what is Wright telling us here? The same thing Gardner had staged in front of the jury. That wasn't really smart!
Soering is right telling in his youtube video that there is no blood on Derek's seat except a few spots. This doesn't match his confession (a lot of blood floating into Derek's leap). We would expext to see blood smears on this seat. Even if Derek would had fallen of the chair instead of standing up.
But Soering had read about it in my arguments. This is not his own argument which is the last proof for me that he is a murderer!!!
Was there a lot of pre trial argument about the admissability of Gardner's uncorroborated transcription of his unrecorded interview with Soering?
Would this be allowed today?
On another point, I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are about the Idaho police telling everybody they have charged the man guilty of those four student murders.
There was a normal amount of back-and-forth about Gardner's testimony at the pretrial hearing. People are allowed to testify about inculpatory oral statements from the accused all the time in American (and German) criminal trials, since it's rare for there to always be a recording device switched on when suspects discuss their crimes.
Further, Gardner's statement was corroborated plenty. First of all, he had the Dictaphone recording made directly after the conversation with Söring. Then there were two witnesses, Beever and Wright. Söring allowed them to enter after the initial conversation with Gardner, and Söring repeated the essentials of his story to them, even demonstrating how he killed the Haysoms. Beever and Wright testified under oath about this, and I'll post some of that later. Further, Gardner's testimony is even further corroborated by the inculpatory statements Söring gave both before and after the confession to Gardner, including the full confession to the German prosecutor, which tracks the confession to Gardner very closely. The defense never tried to seriously imply Gardner was lying, since it would have been pointless.
So yes, under similar circumstances, the statement would certainly still be allowed in. In fact, it would be allowed in with no corroboration at all. Assuming there is no massive problem with a witness' story (i.e., that he couldn't have been in a position to hear the statement by the defendant), a witness will be allowed to testify about the defendant's incriminating statements. The way credibility and corroboration is handled in American criminal trials is through cross-examination, something which few Germans can grasp. If there is a reason the witness might be lying, the defense will explain that to the jury on cross-examination. If there is no corroboration for the witness' testimony, the defense will explain that to the jury on cross-examination. If both of these things are true -- i.e., the witness was biased and there's no corroboration -- the defense will make that very clear to the jury and they'll probably ignore the testimony.
As for the Idaho police chief, he shouldn't have been so definite in saying "we got the guy who did these crimes", he should have been careful to refer to a "suspect". But cops make slip-ups like this in high-profile cases all the time. Like every German, every American knows that defendants are presumed innocent, so statements by over-eager prosecutors are irrelevant. The jury will be carefully instructed to presume the defendant's innocence and demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they're the ones that count, not prosecutors before a camera.
A lot of evidence seems to be published before american trials which has always seemed problematic. But I'm sure there is an amendment to cover this. No wonder voir dire takes so long.
Good points about corroboration. Most of what he confessed, he repeated to several others.
But not sure if that would be admissable in a UK court? PACE defines strict police interview protocols and was brought in following several high profile miscarriages of justice in the 70s, based on false confessions under duress, without legal representation and falsified notebooks.
There is much discussion of the evidence before American criminal trials because the First Amendment provides strong protections for discussions of important topics of public debate, which definitely include high-profile criminal trials. Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees all defendants a public trial, so most of the documents the parties file before, during, and after trial are open to the public.
To limit the effects of publicity, the judge can move the trial to another location, or -- as the judge did here -- pick the jury from another location than where the crime was committed. Further, as here, the jurors will be grilled on whether they can put aside anything they've heard about the case and make up their minds based *solely* on the trial evidence, not on any news reports. And they will be dismissed from the jury if they discuss the case with anyone or watch news coverage during the trial.
One thing to keep in mind is that a jury trial is not *mandatory*. It is the defendant's right whether to have a jury decide his case. Any defendant can waive that right, and then the case will be tried before a single judge, just like in Germany (for instance). Some defendants in high-profile cases do this, under the assumption that a judge will be better at ignoring any extraneous evidence than jury members. But most defendants, like Söring, *insist* on a jury trial even though all of the jurors have heard of the case. They do this because (1) they trust the jury-selection process to reduce the bias: and (2) trying the case before 12 jurors who *all* have to unanimously agree on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a *huge* tactical advantage for the defense. If they can convince just one juror to hold out for "not guilty", the defendant cannot be convicted.
As for PACE, it's a good piece of legislation which the USA should emulate. But its provisions on mandatory recording of confessions didn't come into effect until 1991. So Bedford County was ahead of its time.
Stang is right, cause the whole story at the table makes no sense. Wright tries to put it right, by taking the bloody shoeprints around the table as a proof that Soering stood behind Derek slitting his throat, but that is an obvious fairy tale because a) the bloody imprints are between the chair and the table. Everyone which isn't blind can realize it in the header pic of Wright's testimony (following blog entry) b) the shoe imprints are too small for Seering's feet, so what is Wright telling us here? The same thing Gardner had staged in front of the jury. That wasn't really smart!
Soering is right telling in his youtube video that there is no blood on Derek's seat except a few spots. This doesn't match his confession (a lot of blood floating into Derek's leap). We would expext to see blood smears on this seat. Even if Derek would had fallen of the chair instead of standing up.
But Soering had read about it in my arguments. This is not his own argument which is the last proof for me that he is a murderer!!!
Was there a lot of pre trial argument about the admissability of Gardner's uncorroborated transcription of his unrecorded interview with Soering?
Would this be allowed today?
On another point, I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are about the Idaho police telling everybody they have charged the man guilty of those four student murders.
What happened to the presumption of innocence?
Interesting posts as always, keep them coming.
Thanks!
There was a normal amount of back-and-forth about Gardner's testimony at the pretrial hearing. People are allowed to testify about inculpatory oral statements from the accused all the time in American (and German) criminal trials, since it's rare for there to always be a recording device switched on when suspects discuss their crimes.
Further, Gardner's statement was corroborated plenty. First of all, he had the Dictaphone recording made directly after the conversation with Söring. Then there were two witnesses, Beever and Wright. Söring allowed them to enter after the initial conversation with Gardner, and Söring repeated the essentials of his story to them, even demonstrating how he killed the Haysoms. Beever and Wright testified under oath about this, and I'll post some of that later. Further, Gardner's testimony is even further corroborated by the inculpatory statements Söring gave both before and after the confession to Gardner, including the full confession to the German prosecutor, which tracks the confession to Gardner very closely. The defense never tried to seriously imply Gardner was lying, since it would have been pointless.
So yes, under similar circumstances, the statement would certainly still be allowed in. In fact, it would be allowed in with no corroboration at all. Assuming there is no massive problem with a witness' story (i.e., that he couldn't have been in a position to hear the statement by the defendant), a witness will be allowed to testify about the defendant's incriminating statements. The way credibility and corroboration is handled in American criminal trials is through cross-examination, something which few Germans can grasp. If there is a reason the witness might be lying, the defense will explain that to the jury on cross-examination. If there is no corroboration for the witness' testimony, the defense will explain that to the jury on cross-examination. If both of these things are true -- i.e., the witness was biased and there's no corroboration -- the defense will make that very clear to the jury and they'll probably ignore the testimony.
As for the Idaho police chief, he shouldn't have been so definite in saying "we got the guy who did these crimes", he should have been careful to refer to a "suspect". But cops make slip-ups like this in high-profile cases all the time. Like every German, every American knows that defendants are presumed innocent, so statements by over-eager prosecutors are irrelevant. The jury will be carefully instructed to presume the defendant's innocence and demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and they're the ones that count, not prosecutors before a camera.
A lot of evidence seems to be published before american trials which has always seemed problematic. But I'm sure there is an amendment to cover this. No wonder voir dire takes so long.
Good points about corroboration. Most of what he confessed, he repeated to several others.
But not sure if that would be admissable in a UK court? PACE defines strict police interview protocols and was brought in following several high profile miscarriages of justice in the 70s, based on false confessions under duress, without legal representation and falsified notebooks.
There is much discussion of the evidence before American criminal trials because the First Amendment provides strong protections for discussions of important topics of public debate, which definitely include high-profile criminal trials. Further, the Sixth Amendment guarantees all defendants a public trial, so most of the documents the parties file before, during, and after trial are open to the public.
To limit the effects of publicity, the judge can move the trial to another location, or -- as the judge did here -- pick the jury from another location than where the crime was committed. Further, as here, the jurors will be grilled on whether they can put aside anything they've heard about the case and make up their minds based *solely* on the trial evidence, not on any news reports. And they will be dismissed from the jury if they discuss the case with anyone or watch news coverage during the trial.
One thing to keep in mind is that a jury trial is not *mandatory*. It is the defendant's right whether to have a jury decide his case. Any defendant can waive that right, and then the case will be tried before a single judge, just like in Germany (for instance). Some defendants in high-profile cases do this, under the assumption that a judge will be better at ignoring any extraneous evidence than jury members. But most defendants, like Söring, *insist* on a jury trial even though all of the jurors have heard of the case. They do this because (1) they trust the jury-selection process to reduce the bias: and (2) trying the case before 12 jurors who *all* have to unanimously agree on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a *huge* tactical advantage for the defense. If they can convince just one juror to hold out for "not guilty", the defendant cannot be convicted.
As for PACE, it's a good piece of legislation which the USA should emulate. But its provisions on mandatory recording of confessions didn't come into effect until 1991. So Bedford County was ahead of its time.
Thanks for your feedback and insights.
I didn't know Bedford County was ahead of PACE!
Although Soring would have been, after four years in the british legal system.