Criminal Defense Wiki - User contributions [en]

Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts

2011-09-26T19:15:34Z

Saviles:

Following are sample transcripts that include [[Closing Statements|closing arguments]].

==Closing Argument in a Manslaughter Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Raelyn Balfour

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument in a high-profile case in Virginia where a mother is on trial for manslaughter for accidentally leaving her infant in a car seat in the back of her car throughout the workday. The undisputed evidence was that she forgot to drop the child off at day care, and left him in the car unintentionally. The prosecutor argues that forgetting one's child in the car amounts to a "callous disregard' for human life - the necessary standard for involuntary manslaughter. Defense lawyer John Kenneth Zwerling argues that the defendant accidentally caused the tragedy, cared deeply for her child, and cannot possibly be found to have acted in callous disregard for him. The crux of the argument focuses on the very definition of manslaughter - what it is, and perhaps what it should be as applied to an honest lapse of memory. Of note is that Mr. Zwerling plays a tape of a 911 call during the closing argument, which depicts the defendant screaming and crying as she holds her child upon realizing she forgot him the car. The jury found the defendant not guilty.

*[[Media:closing_argument_transcript.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]
{{Media:Closing_argument.pdf|Word]]

==Closing Argument in a Capital Murder Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Allen Muhammad

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument of a very high-profile case in which a sniper is on trial for capital murder for murdering ten people and critically injuring three others over several weeks in October, 2002. Solid evidence linked the defendant’s seventeen year old co-conspirator to the murders, but the theory was that the defendant was the mastermind and in control of the crimes. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was the “immediate perpetrator” of the shooting and thus primarily responsible. In response, the defense concentrated on shifting all blame onto the co-conspirator. Note how the defense attorney is very respectful and sympathetic to all the victims and their families, but distances his client from any responsibility for those injuries. The defense also spends a lot of time defining legal terms – such as “immediate perpetrator” and “reasonable doubt” – to argue that the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof. The defendant was found guilty of capital murder and given the death sentence.

*[[Media:va_v_muhammad.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]

==Closing Argument in a Kidnapping and Murder Case==

'''Case''': People v. David Alan Westerfield

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument for the defense in a California case in which a man is on trial for the kidnapping and murder of a seven year old girl. The defense attempts to discredit the physical evidence using scientific theories of contamination. Note how the defense attorney provides other logical explanations for the defendant's behavior while attempting to convince the jury that the prosecution's conclusions are illogical. This use of logic provides the jury with another, plausible explanation for who may have murdered the victims. The defendant was found guilty of kidnapping and murder.

*[[Media:people_v_westerfield.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments]]

= Video Footage of Actual Closing Arguments =

==Closing Argument in a Murder Trial==

'''Case''': People v. Orenthal James Simpson

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument in an infamous California murder trial, delivered by Johnnie Cochren, lead lawyer for the defense. The defendant, a famous American football player and actor, was accused of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The case against him was quite strong: including DNA, motive, and strong witnesses. Notice how the lawyer uses a short, catchy phrase as one of his themes: "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit." Also note how he effectively transforms this case into a racial issue, thus proposing that a vote against the defendant is a vote for racism. The defendant was found not guilty.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRth45yU_2Q&feature=related|Click Here to Watch the Closing Argument]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]], [[Theory of the Case]], [[Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts]]

Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts

2011-09-26T18:54:51Z

Saviles: /* Closing Argument in a Manslaughter Case */

Following are sample transcripts that include [[Closing Statements|closing arguments]].

==Closing Argument in a Manslaughter Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Raelyn Balfour

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument in a high-profile case in Virginia where a mother is on trial for manslaughter for accidentally leaving her infant in a car seat in the back of her car throughout the workday. The undisputed evidence was that she forgot to drop the child off at day care, and left him in the car unintentionally. The prosecutor argues that forgetting one's child in the car amounts to a "callous disregard' for human life - the necessary standard for involuntary manslaughter. Defense lawyer John Kenneth Zwerling argues that the defendant accidentally caused the tragedy, cared deeply for her child, and cannot possibly be found to have acted in callous disregard for him. The crux of the argument focuses on the very definition of manslaughter - what it is, and perhaps what it should be as applied to an honest lapse of memory. Of note is that Mr. Zwerling plays a tape of a 911 call during the closing argument, which depicts the defendant screaming and crying as she holds her child upon realizing she forgot him the car. The jury found the defendant not guilty.

*[[Media:closing_argument_transcript.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]

==Closing Argument in a Capital Murder Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Allen Muhammad

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument of a very high-profile case in which a sniper is on trial for capital murder for murdering ten people and critically injuring three others over several weeks in October, 2002. Solid evidence linked the defendant’s seventeen year old co-conspirator to the murders, but the theory was that the defendant was the mastermind and in control of the crimes. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was the “immediate perpetrator” of the shooting and thus primarily responsible. In response, the defense concentrated on shifting all blame onto the co-conspirator. Note how the defense attorney is very respectful and sympathetic to all the victims and their families, but distances his client from any responsibility for those injuries. The defense also spends a lot of time defining legal terms – such as “immediate perpetrator” and “reasonable doubt” – to argue that the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof. The defendant was found guilty of capital murder and given the death sentence.

*[[Media:va_v_muhammad.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]

==Closing Argument in a Kidnapping and Murder Case==

'''Case''': People v. David Alan Westerfield

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument for the defense in a California case in which a man is on trial for the kidnapping and murder of a seven year old girl. The defense attempts to discredit the physical evidence using scientific theories of contamination. Note how the defense attorney provides other logical explanations for the defendant's behavior while attempting to convince the jury that the prosecution's conclusions are illogical. This use of logic provides the jury with another, plausible explanation for who may have murdered the victims. The defendant was found guilty of kidnapping and murder.

*[[Media:people_v_westerfield.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments]]

= Video Footage of Actual Closing Arguments =

==Closing Argument in a Murder Trial==

'''Case''': People v. Orenthal James Simpson

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument in an infamous California murder trial, delivered by Johnnie Cochren, lead lawyer for the defense. The defendant, a famous American football player and actor, was accused of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The case against him was quite strong: including DNA, motive, and strong witnesses. Notice how the lawyer uses a short, catchy phrase as one of his themes: "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit." Also note how he effectively transforms this case into a racial issue, thus proposing that a vote against the defendant is a vote for racism. The defendant was found not guilty.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRth45yU_2Q&feature=related|Click Here to Watch the Closing Argument]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]], [[Theory of the Case]], [[Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts]]

Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts

2011-09-26T18:50:03Z

Saviles: /* Closing Argument in a Manslaughter Case */

Following are sample transcripts that include [[Closing Statements|closing arguments]].

==Closing Argument in a Manslaughter Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. Raelyn Balfour

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument in a high-profile case in Virginia where a mother is on trial for manslaughter for accidentally leaving her infant in a car seat in the back of her car throughout the workday. The undisputed evidence was that she forgot to drop the child off at day care, and left him in the car unintentionally. The prosecutor argues that forgetting one's child in the car amounts to a "callous disregard' for human life - the necessary standard for involuntary manslaughter. Defense lawyer John Kenneth Zwerling argues that the defendant accidentally caused the tragedy, cared deeply for her child, and cannot possibly be found to have acted in callous disregard for him. The crux of the argument focuses on the very definition of manslaughter - what it is, and perhaps what it should be as applied to an honest lapse of memory. Of note is that Mr. Zwerling plays a tape of a 911 call during the closing argument, which depicts the defendant screaming and crying as she holds her child upon realizing she forgot him the car. The jury found the defendant not guilty.

*[[Media:closing_argument_transcript.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]
[[Media:Closing_argument.pdf|Word]]

==Closing Argument in a Capital Murder Case==

'''Case''': Commonwealth of Virginia v. John Allen Muhammad

'''Summary''': This transcript is the closing argument of a very high-profile case in which a sniper is on trial for capital murder for murdering ten people and critically injuring three others over several weeks in October, 2002. Solid evidence linked the defendant’s seventeen year old co-conspirator to the murders, but the theory was that the defendant was the mastermind and in control of the crimes. The prosecutor argued that the defendant was the “immediate perpetrator” of the shooting and thus primarily responsible. In response, the defense concentrated on shifting all blame onto the co-conspirator. Note how the defense attorney is very respectful and sympathetic to all the victims and their families, but distances his client from any responsibility for those injuries. The defense also spends a lot of time defining legal terms – such as “immediate perpetrator” and “reasonable doubt” – to argue that the prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof. The defendant was found guilty of capital murder and given the death sentence.

*[[Media:va_v_muhammad.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments ]]

==Closing Argument in a Kidnapping and Murder Case==

'''Case''': People v. David Alan Westerfield

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument for the defense in a California case in which a man is on trial for the kidnapping and murder of a seven year old girl. The defense attempts to discredit the physical evidence using scientific theories of contamination. Note how the defense attorney provides other logical explanations for the defendant's behavior while attempting to convince the jury that the prosecution's conclusions are illogical. This use of logic provides the jury with another, plausible explanation for who may have murdered the victims. The defendant was found guilty of kidnapping and murder.

*[[Media:people_v_westerfield.pdf|Sample Closing Arguments]]

= Video Footage of Actual Closing Arguments =

==Closing Argument in a Murder Trial==

'''Case''': People v. Orenthal James Simpson

'''Summary''': This is the closing argument in an infamous California murder trial, delivered by Johnnie Cochren, lead lawyer for the defense. The defendant, a famous American football player and actor, was accused of the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. The case against him was quite strong: including DNA, motive, and strong witnesses. Notice how the lawyer uses a short, catchy phrase as one of his themes: "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit." Also note how he effectively transforms this case into a racial issue, thus proposing that a vote against the defendant is a vote for racism. The defendant was found not guilty.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRth45yU_2Q&feature=related|Click Here to Watch the Closing Argument]

----
See [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]], [[Theory of the Case]], [[Sample Cross-Examination Transcripts]]

Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts

2011-09-26T18:49:40Z

Saviles:

Предварительное собеседование

2011-07-19T09:03:27Z

Saviles: /* Введение */

==Введение==

В соответствии с Конституцией Соединенных Штатов Америки, если вы обвиняетесь в совершении преступления, наказуемого лишением свободы, то вы имеете право на суд присяжных. Более того, подсудимый имеет право на суд присяжных, который беспристрыстный и свободен от предрассудков по отношению к обвиняемому. Так же должен присутствовать процесс по взыскательных предвзятостей и процесс общего правового суда, так называемый предварительное собеседование (voir dire). По сути, предварительное собеседование является методом выбора присяжных; когда судья и адвокат задают вопросы потенциальным присяжных для того, чтобы избежать возможных ошибок в судебном процессе.

----
{{Languages | Voir Dire}}

Voir Dire/ru

2011-07-19T09:01:34Z

Saviles: moved Voir Dire/ru to Предварительное собеседование

#REDIRECT [[Предварительное собеседование]]

Предварительное собеседование

2011-07-19T09:01:34Z

Saviles: moved Voir Dire/ru to Предварительное собеседование

Предварительное собеседование

2011-07-19T09:01:10Z

Saviles:

Заключительные заявления

2011-07-13T12:23:01Z

Saviles:

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLOSING ARGUMENTS RESOURCES</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RELATED CONCEPTS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case]]
* [[Opening Statements]]
* [[Direct Examination]]
* [[Cross-Examination]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

Этот веб-сайт в настоящее время в стадии строительства.

----
See [[Trial]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Заключительные заявления

2011-07-13T11:37:44Z

Saviles:

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLOSING ARGUMENTS RESOURCES</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RELATED CONCEPTS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case]]
* [[Opening Statements]]
* [[Direct Examination]]
* [[Cross-Examination]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

= Closing Statement in Russian =

== First heading ==

----
See [[Trial]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Заключительные заявления

2011-07-13T11:37:03Z

Saviles: Created page with "{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue" |- |<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; ..."

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLOSING ARGUMENTS RESOURCES</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RELATED CONCEPTS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case]]
* [[Opening Statements]]
* [[Direct Examination]]
* [[Cross-Examination]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Criminal Defense lawyers]
|}

= Closing Statement in Russian =

== First heading ==

Zimbabwe

2011-07-08T12:21:39Z

Saviles: /* Pre-Trial */

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ZIMBABWE CRIMINAL DEFENSE MANUAL</h2>
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Introduction | Introduction]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities |Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Pre-Trial Matters |Pre-Trial Matters]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Jurisdiction of Courts|Jurisdiction of Courts]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Preparing for Trial | Preparing for Trial]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Trial|Trials]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Rules of Evidence | Rules of Evidence]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Criminal Law Code | Criminal Law Code]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Verdict |Verdict]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Sentence |Sentence]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Record of Proceedings |Record of Proceedings]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Appeals | Appeals]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Automatic Review and Scrutiny | Automatic Review and Scrutiny]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Miscellaneous Matters |Miscellaneous Matters]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CODES</h2>
* [[Zimbabwe Legal Aid Act]]
* [[The Constitution of Zimbabwe]]
* [[Zimbabwe Criminal Code]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:ACHPR_PrinciplesandGuidelines_FairTrial.pdf | Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa]]
*[http://caselaw.ihrda.org African Human Rights Case Law Analyser]
*[[Media:Zimbabwe_Country_Summary_Card_2011.pdf | Zimbabwe Country Summary Card]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Zimbabwean lawyers ]
|}
==Background==
After 1980 Zimbabwe was widely regarded as a model African democracy. However, since 2000, the country has been engulfed in a crippling political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has virtually wiped out the progress made over the previous two decades. An estimated 3.5 million Zimbabweans have fled the country over the past seven years.

Zimbabwe once boasted one of Africa's most sophisticated and developed legal communities. However, the country's justice system was adversely affected by the political meltdown, with lawyers and judges fleeing the country by the hundreds. The country's prisons swelled and the pre-trial detention population soared. During this period of turmoil, torture became widely accepted as a legitimate tool for police investigation and judicial sanctions. A total system collapse resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale.

Zimbabwe is divided into 8 provinces and 2 cities with provincial status (Harare and Bulawayo). The current Legal Aid Directorate (LAD) is staffed by 15 lawyers, all based in Harare, representing the needs of Zimbabwe's 12 million citizens. LAD focuses almost exclusively on civil cases. As a result, defendants receive legal aid only in the most serious of cases.
==Type of System==
Zimbabwe's legal system is a common-law system based on Roman-Dutch law but has been influenced by the system of nearby [[South Africa]]. There are four justices on the Zimbawbe Supreme Court and they have original jurisdiction over fundamental rights cases under the [[The Constitution of Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Constitution]].

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Chapter Three of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is the starting point for defendants' rights in Zimbabwe. Article 13 provides for notice of charges as and provides that an individual may consult an attorney at their own expense <ref>Constitution of Zimbabwe, Art. 13(3)</ref>. An individual who is detained must be brought to trial within a "reasonable time". <ref> Constitution of Zimbabwe, Art. 13(4)</ref> "[T}orture ... inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment" are forbidden under Section 15 of the Constitution<ref>Constitution of Zimmabwe, Art. 15(1)</ref>. Article 18 sets for specific provisions for criminal cases including the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and the right to silence.

==Defendants' Rights==

====Pre-Trial====
In order to make an arrest, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. A warrant is required unless the defendant has committed or attempted to commit the crime in the presence of a police officer. If arrested with a warrant the defendant must be brought to a police station or charging station as soon as possible. A defendant may be detained for no more than 48 hours unless a magistrate authorizes an extension of the detention. There are special provisions for prolonged detention under the Ninth Schedule of the CPEA.

If a defendant requests an attorney during interrogation, police must stop the interrogation until the defendant has been able to consult his or her attorney <ref> Slatter & Ors 1983 (2) ZLR 144 (H)</ref>. A statement made during interrogation must be confirmed by a magistrate in order to be admitted at trial. Once confirmed, this becomes difficult to challenge at trial.

====Trial====
Section 10 of the Legal Aid Act provides for legal aid in criminal cases when a judge, magistrate or attorney general believes it is in the interests of justice and the individual has insufficient means to pay a private attorney. Generally every client accused of homicide is entitled to a legal aid lawyer.

The defense lawyer has the right to cross-examine State witnesses. Statements to police may be admitted only if freely and voluntarily made without undue influence<ref> CPEA section 256</ref>. If produced before a Magistrate, the confession requires no further proof of admissibility although defense may still challenge the confession as the product of undue influence.

The State is required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Witness testimony alone by accomplices, young children and complainants in sexual cases usually require corroborating evidence to establish the State's burden of proof.

In Zimbabwe, the court should scrutinize identification evidence and when it is poor, should require corroboration or support. <ref> Nkomo & Anor, 1989 (3) ZLR 117 (S)</ref>

Although a defendant has the right not to testify, the factfinder may also draw an adverse inference from the accused's silence at various stage of the proceedings.

====Post-Conviction====
After conviction, a defendant may appeal the conviction, sentence or both. The grounds must be set out clearly in the notice and grounds for appeal. In exceptional circumstances a court may hear new evidence that was not admitted at the trial court.

-----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>
*Rule of Law: 1.4/100
*2009 Prison Population: 17,967, 136 people per 100,000
==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__

Zimbabwe

2011-07-08T12:20:48Z

Saviles:

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 0px 20px 20px; width: 280px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">ZIMBABWE CRIMINAL DEFENSE MANUAL</h2>
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Introduction | Introduction]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities |Defense Lawyer's Role and Responsibilities]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Pre-Trial Matters |Pre-Trial Matters]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Jurisdiction of Courts|Jurisdiction of Courts]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Preparing for Trial | Preparing for Trial]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Trial|Trials]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Rules of Evidence | Rules of Evidence]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Criminal Law Code | Criminal Law Code]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Verdict |Verdict]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Sentence |Sentence]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Record of Proceedings |Record of Proceedings]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Appeals | Appeals]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Automatic Review and Scrutiny | Automatic Review and Scrutiny]]
# [[Zimbabwe Criminal Defense Manual - Miscellaneous Matters |Miscellaneous Matters]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CODES</h2>
* [[Zimbabwe Legal Aid Act]]
* [[The Constitution of Zimbabwe]]
* [[Zimbabwe Criminal Code]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL RESOURCES</h2>
*[[Media:ACHPR_PrinciplesandGuidelines_FairTrial.pdf | Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa]]
*[http://caselaw.ihrda.org African Human Rights Case Law Analyser]
*[[Media:Zimbabwe_Country_Summary_Card_2011.pdf | Zimbabwe Country Summary Card]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</h2>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org eLearning Courses for Zimbabwean lawyers ]
|}
==Background==
After 1980 Zimbabwe was widely regarded as a model African democracy. However, since 2000, the country has been engulfed in a crippling political, economic, and humanitarian crisis that has virtually wiped out the progress made over the previous two decades. An estimated 3.5 million Zimbabweans have fled the country over the past seven years.

Zimbabwe once boasted one of Africa's most sophisticated and developed legal communities. However, the country's justice system was adversely affected by the political meltdown, with lawyers and judges fleeing the country by the hundreds. The country's prisons swelled and the pre-trial detention population soared. During this period of turmoil, torture became widely accepted as a legitimate tool for police investigation and judicial sanctions. A total system collapse resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe on a massive scale.

Zimbabwe is divided into 8 provinces and 2 cities with provincial status (Harare and Bulawayo). The current Legal Aid Directorate (LAD) is staffed by 15 lawyers, all based in Harare, representing the needs of Zimbabwe's 12 million citizens. LAD focuses almost exclusively on civil cases. As a result, defendants receive legal aid only in the most serious of cases.
==Type of System==
Zimbabwe's legal system is a common-law system based on Roman-Dutch law but has been influenced by the system of nearby [[South Africa]]. There are four justices on the Zimbawbe Supreme Court and they have original jurisdiction over fundamental rights cases under the [[The Constitution of Zimbabwe | Zimbabwe Constitution]].

==Sources of Defendants' Rights==
Chapter Three of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is the starting point for defendants' rights in Zimbabwe. Article 13 provides for notice of charges as and provides that an individual may consult an attorney at their own expense <ref>Constitution of Zimbabwe, Art. 13(3)</ref>. An individual who is detained must be brought to trial within a "reasonable time". <ref> Constitution of Zimbabwe, Art. 13(4)</ref> "[T}orture ... inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment" are forbidden under Section 15 of the Constitution<ref>Constitution of Zimmabwe, Art. 15(1)</ref>. Article 18 sets for specific provisions for criminal cases including the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and the right to silence.

==Defendants' Rights==

====Pre-Trial====
In order to make an arrest, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. A warrant is required unless the defendant has committed or attempted to commit the crime in the presence of a police officer. If arrested with a warrant the defendant must be brought to a police station or charging station as soon as possible. A defendant may be detained for no more than 48 hours unless a magistrate authorizes an extension of the detention. There are special provisions for prolonged detention under the Ninth Schedule of the CPEA.

If a defendant requests an attorney during interrogation, police must stop the interrogation until the defendant has been able to consult his or her attorney <ref> Slatter & Ors 1983 (2) ZLR 144 (H)</ref>. A statement made during interrogation must be confirmed by a magistrate in order to be admitted at trial. Once confirmed, this becomes difficult to challenge at trial. [[My Page]]

====Trial====
Section 10 of the Legal Aid Act provides for legal aid in criminal cases when a judge, magistrate or attorney general believes it is in the interests of justice and the individual has insufficient means to pay a private attorney. Generally every client accused of homicide is entitled to a legal aid lawyer.

The defense lawyer has the right to cross-examine State witnesses. Statements to police may be admitted only if freely and voluntarily made without undue influence<ref> CPEA section 256</ref>. If produced before a Magistrate, the confession requires no further proof of admissibility although defense may still challenge the confession as the product of undue influence.

The State is required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Witness testimony alone by accomplices, young children and complainants in sexual cases usually require corroborating evidence to establish the State's burden of proof.

In Zimbabwe, the court should scrutinize identification evidence and when it is poor, should require corroboration or support. <ref> Nkomo & Anor, 1989 (3) ZLR 117 (S)</ref>

Although a defendant has the right not to testify, the factfinder may also draw an adverse inference from the accused's silence at various stage of the proceedings.

====Post-Conviction====
After conviction, a defendant may appeal the conviction, sentence or both. The grounds must be set out clearly in the notice and grounds for appeal. In exceptional circumstances a court may hear new evidence that was not admitted at the trial court.

-----
See [[Criminal Justice Systems Around the World]]

<h2 id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">QUICK FACTS</h2>
*Rule of Law: 1.4/100
*2009 Prison Population: 17,967, 136 people per 100,000
==References==
<references/>

__NOTOC__

Theory of the Case

2011-07-08T12:18:42Z

Saviles: /* Background */

== Background ==
To defend a client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. This story can be summarized as the defense theory of the case. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the factfinder, who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, the plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your theory of the case.

The basic requirement in preparing a defense is to develop a theory of the case. Of course it is necessary to research the law and to identify the elements of each charge. It is also important to go over the prosecution's evidence carefully to see if there is evidence of each element. But a well thought out theory of the case enables the defender to ask the right questions and look for the right evidence to prepare for trial.

A theory of the case consists of the following parts:
#'''The relevant law''' - The law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in your case.
#'''The facts of the [[crimes | crime]] that are beyond dispute''' - Those facts which (no matter what you do or say) will be believed by the factfinder as true. These include those facts which you will be able to present (through affidavit, direct examination or cross-examination) which the factfinder would likely accept as true.
#'''Common sense''' - Ordinary people must believe based on their life experiences that the defense theory of the case is what happened.
#'''Emotional factors''' - Emotions often motivate more decisions by people than logic. Therefore, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder as to what, how, and why the case occurred.

Here is how three public defenders have defined the theory of the case:

<blockquote> "That combination of facts and law which in a common sense and emotional way leads the judge to conclude a fellow citizen is wrongfully accused" - Tony Natale, Federal Defender </blockquote>
<blockquote>"The central theory that organizes all facts, reasons, arguments and furnishes the basic position from which one determines every action in the [[trial]]" - Mario Conte</blockquote>
<blockquote>"A paragraph of one to three sentences which summarizes the facts, emotions and legal basis for the citizen accused's acquittal or conviction on lesser charge while telling the defenses story of innocence or reduced culpability" - Vince Aprile</blockquote>

A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense conveys an attitude that there are two sides or visions. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation.

The theory must be credible and believable. It must be consistent with bad facts and explain away bad facts at the same time. It should be interesting and entertaining. Finally, the theory should be client-centered and driven by the requirements of the factfinder.

A theory of the case is not mistaken identification, self-defense, reasonable doubt, inadequate police investigation or coercion and duress.

==Theme of the Case==
A theory of the case may also include a theme of the case. A theme of the case is a word, phrase, or simple sentence that captures the controlling or dominant emotion and/or reality of the theory of the case. The case theme must be brief and easily remembered by the jurors. Examples of a theme of the case include:
* Puppet of Fear
* Unwilling Participant
* Forced to Rob
* Unwilling Accomplice
* Victim of Fear
* Two Victims
* Coerced to Crime
* Frightened, Forced, and Falsely Accused
* Frightened, Forced, and Framed

A theme functions to strengthen the defendant's case in several ways. First, the theme repeatedly reinforces your theory of the case in the factfinder's mind. Second, the theme provides an easy catch-word or catch-phrase for the factfinder to use when determining guilt or innocent. The theme enables the defense lawyer to re-orient the factfinder to the theory of the case quickly and easily. A theme also forces the prosecution to argue against your theory rather than simply arguing their own case. Finally, the theme brings a vivid image and emotion to the factfinder every time it is used. These themes can be used in every facet of the case: motions, negotiations, opening statements, direct examinations, objections, closing arguments, instructions, post-verdict motions, sentencing, and dealing with the media.

==Benefits of the Theory of the Case==
A theory of the case benefits and drives all other aspects of the defense. For instance, a theory of the case:
* Directs pre-trial motion practices
* Focuses and prioritizes [[Voir Dire | voir dire]] questions
* Functions as a mini opening statement
* Measures the prejudice of prosecutorial actions
* Creates parameters for the scope of cross-examination
* Places all witnesses in the defense context
* Reveals the appropriate attitude for cross-examining each witness
* Organizes the presentation of the defense case
* Serves as a checklist for eliciting essential information from defense witnesses
* Dictates the essential defense instructions and reveals inappropriate instructions
* Identifies and prioritizes issues for opening statements and closing arguments

== Creating a Theory of the Case ==
===Stage One - Acquisition===
Learn as much as possible about the individual facts of the case. Gather all information, even if it appears to be harmful or irrelevant to the defense. Clearly harmful information is as important or more important than any other information.

===Stage Two - Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence in the case. Identify the facts that are likely to reach the listener. Try to determine how the government will make its case. What evidence does the government have? How will the government address the neutral facts? By anticipating the government's case you can prepare for it.

Often, there are certain facts in a case that a listener will believe to be true no matter what you do or say. You should identify these facts and make the facts part of your theory. Be creative, think of all the possible case theories you could use based on the evidence you have gathered. Start by examining all of the possible defenses for the offense your client is charged with.

When you brainstorm consider if a witness can identify your client at the scene. Can the government prove the client was at the scene? Is there any evidence that your client was framed? Did the crime actually occur? Are your client's actions justified or excusable? For example, was the client acting in self-defense or under duress? Is your client guilty of a lesser charge? Think through all of the possibilities before choosing a defense.

After brainstorming all the possible theories, subject each theory to two tests. First, the facts beyond change test. Is the theory consistent with of the facts beyond change? If there are any facts inconsistent with you theory you may want to choose a different theory. The listener will not accept a theory that is inconsistent with a fact that the listener believer to be true. Second, the plausibility test. Is the theory plausible? Is the theory internally consistent? Does the theory sound like the truth? If more than one theory passes both tests, choose the theory that best applies to the listener's world view. For example, if the listener has a police background, a theory that a police officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that the police office is lying.

===Stage Three - Execution===
Select the theory that gives your client the best chance to achieve the client's desired result. Only choose one theory. Having more than one theory will undermine your credibility. We suggest that you pick a theory that presents an affirmative picture of your client's innocence.

Your final theory of the case should have persuasive facts, strong emotions, a legal basis for the listener to find your client innocent, vivid imagery, and concrete language.

Your final theory of the case should be client-centered, listener driven, and a compelling and believable story.

View the listener as a member of an adult education class. You are the teacher and you must teach the listener your theory. You can teach the listener through demonstrative or physical evidence, visual displays, re-enactments, and analogies.

Plan your case in reverse. Start at the end. If you are appearing before a jury, draft jury instructions tailored to your theory. In drafting the instructions, consider the law underlying your theory.

Draft your closing argument based on the evidence that led you to select the theory. Explain and support your theory while arguing against the government's theory.

During cross examination, your goal should not be to discover new facts. Ask questions about facts that you know will support your theory. If a line of questions does not advance your theory, do not use it.

Use the opening statement to introduce your theory to the listener.

===Factual Component===

When finalizing your theory of the case remember to include the most important facts, good, bad, and indifferent.

When developing a theory of the case to explain a conflict or criminal act, the defender should ask:

* What happened?
* What did they do, feel, want?
* What is the relationship between the parties involved?
* What are the physical particularities?
* What are the legal elements of the case?

===Legal Component===

Include the legal strategies and phrases you will use during the trial. Include the elements of the crime charged. For each element, list the evidence in support and the evidence rebutting the element. If there is little or no evidence in the case file to rebut an element, then part of the defense investigation is to look for such evidence.

===Emotional Component===

Include the emotions of the scene. Put the listener in the defendant's position.

===Vocabulary of the Case===

Use the vocabulary of the case in your theory. This, internal vocabulary, comes from the documents of the case such as police reports, witness statements, official records, and personal documents. The vocabulary of the case also comes from the testimony of the witnesses.
External vocabularies are the words you are able to get witnesses to use. Make the witness use vivid synonyms. External vocabulary must come from the witness and should not be over-dramatized. External vocabulary should be consistent and credible with the normal vocabulary of the witness.

== Storytelling==
Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the defense lawyer successfully executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judge's imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences. More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to uyse both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument.

The following suggestions may help the lawyer decide what language to use or avoid in stating a theory of the case on behalf of a client:
*The language of storytelling and the language the lawyer normally uses are very different. The lawyer should tell the story as if he is casually speaking with friends.
*Speak accurately. What you actually saw should match what you intend to say.
*Translate legal terms or abstract concepts into clear, common, and simple language.
*Use effective language.
**Avoid words or phrases with reserved meaning, for example "I think," "I believe," or "I will try to prove."
**Use active tense.
**Avoid unconscious hesitation or useless verb pauses.
**Use language that has the appropriate emotional and appealing elements.
**Use vivid language.
**Use concrete rather than abstract language.
**Use detailed and accurate rather than general or vague language.
*There should be sentence variety, but short sentences are best.
*Do not refer to notes while speaking.

==Conclusion==
Whether defense counsel chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof he must begin early on to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g., alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g., self-defense, insanity, entrapment). The approach you take will determine many subsequent actions. In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

Anyone handling a defense understands that it is necessary to look at the most obvious aspects. But it is also important to consider the facts beyond the obvious. It is the job of the defense to point out the whole picture, beyond the first glance, the most obvious. Developing the theory of the case points the directions for investigation, and the investigation is likely to uncover information that further develops the theory of the case.

----
See [[Trial]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]] and [[Direct Examination]]

----
{{Languages|Theory of the Case}}

Theory of the Case

2011-07-08T12:16:20Z

Saviles: /* Background */

== Background ==
To defend a client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. This story can be summarized as the defense theory of the case. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the factfinder, who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, the plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your theory of the case.
<reference>oxford dictionary</reference>
The basic requirement in preparing a defense is to develop a theory of the case. Of course it is necessary to research the law and to identify the elements of each charge. It is also important to go over the prosecution's evidence carefully to see if there is evidence of each element. But a well thought out theory of the case enables the defender to ask the right questions and look for the right evidence to prepare for trial.

A theory of the case consists of the following parts:
#'''The relevant law''' - The law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in your case.
#'''The facts of the [[crimes | crime]] that are beyond dispute''' - Those facts which (no matter what you do or say) will be believed by the factfinder as true. These include those facts which you will be able to present (through affidavit, direct examination or cross-examination) which the factfinder would likely accept as true.
#'''Common sense''' - Ordinary people must believe based on their life experiences that the defense theory of the case is what happened.
#'''Emotional factors''' - Emotions often motivate more decisions by people than logic. Therefore, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder as to what, how, and why the case occurred.

Here is how three public defenders have defined the theory of the case:

<blockquote> "That combination of facts and law which in a common sense and emotional way leads the judge to conclude a fellow citizen is wrongfully accused" - Tony Natale, Federal Defender </blockquote>
<blockquote>"The central theory that organizes all facts, reasons, arguments and furnishes the basic position from which one determines every action in the [[trial]]" - Mario Conte</blockquote>
<blockquote>"A paragraph of one to three sentences which summarizes the facts, emotions and legal basis for the citizen accused's acquittal or conviction on lesser charge while telling the defenses story of innocence or reduced culpability" - Vince Aprile</blockquote>

A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense conveys an attitude that there are two sides or visions. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation.

The theory must be credible and believable. It must be consistent with bad facts and explain away bad facts at the same time. It should be interesting and entertaining. Finally, the theory should be client-centered and driven by the requirements of the factfinder.

A theory of the case is not mistaken identification, self-defense, reasonable doubt, inadequate police investigation or coercion and duress.

==Theme of the Case==
A theory of the case may also include a theme of the case. A theme of the case is a word, phrase, or simple sentence that captures the controlling or dominant emotion and/or reality of the theory of the case. The case theme must be brief and easily remembered by the jurors. Examples of a theme of the case include:
* Puppet of Fear
* Unwilling Participant
* Forced to Rob
* Unwilling Accomplice
* Victim of Fear
* Two Victims
* Coerced to Crime
* Frightened, Forced, and Falsely Accused
* Frightened, Forced, and Framed

A theme functions to strengthen the defendant's case in several ways. First, the theme repeatedly reinforces your theory of the case in the factfinder's mind. Second, the theme provides an easy catch-word or catch-phrase for the factfinder to use when determining guilt or innocent. The theme enables the defense lawyer to re-orient the factfinder to the theory of the case quickly and easily. A theme also forces the prosecution to argue against your theory rather than simply arguing their own case. Finally, the theme brings a vivid image and emotion to the factfinder every time it is used. These themes can be used in every facet of the case: motions, negotiations, opening statements, direct examinations, objections, closing arguments, instructions, post-verdict motions, sentencing, and dealing with the media.

==Benefits of the Theory of the Case==
A theory of the case benefits and drives all other aspects of the defense. For instance, a theory of the case:
* Directs pre-trial motion practices
* Focuses and prioritizes [[Voir Dire | voir dire]] questions
* Functions as a mini opening statement
* Measures the prejudice of prosecutorial actions
* Creates parameters for the scope of cross-examination
* Places all witnesses in the defense context
* Reveals the appropriate attitude for cross-examining each witness
* Organizes the presentation of the defense case
* Serves as a checklist for eliciting essential information from defense witnesses
* Dictates the essential defense instructions and reveals inappropriate instructions
* Identifies and prioritizes issues for opening statements and closing arguments

== Creating a Theory of the Case ==
===Stage One - Acquisition===
Learn as much as possible about the individual facts of the case. Gather all information, even if it appears to be harmful or irrelevant to the defense. Clearly harmful information is as important or more important than any other information.

===Stage Two - Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence in the case. Identify the facts that are likely to reach the listener. Try to determine how the government will make its case. What evidence does the government have? How will the government address the neutral facts? By anticipating the government's case you can prepare for it.

Often, there are certain facts in a case that a listener will believe to be true no matter what you do or say. You should identify these facts and make the facts part of your theory. Be creative, think of all the possible case theories you could use based on the evidence you have gathered. Start by examining all of the possible defenses for the offense your client is charged with.

When you brainstorm consider if a witness can identify your client at the scene. Can the government prove the client was at the scene? Is there any evidence that your client was framed? Did the crime actually occur? Are your client's actions justified or excusable? For example, was the client acting in self-defense or under duress? Is your client guilty of a lesser charge? Think through all of the possibilities before choosing a defense.

After brainstorming all the possible theories, subject each theory to two tests. First, the facts beyond change test. Is the theory consistent with of the facts beyond change? If there are any facts inconsistent with you theory you may want to choose a different theory. The listener will not accept a theory that is inconsistent with a fact that the listener believer to be true. Second, the plausibility test. Is the theory plausible? Is the theory internally consistent? Does the theory sound like the truth? If more than one theory passes both tests, choose the theory that best applies to the listener's world view. For example, if the listener has a police background, a theory that a police officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that the police office is lying.

===Stage Three - Execution===
Select the theory that gives your client the best chance to achieve the client's desired result. Only choose one theory. Having more than one theory will undermine your credibility. We suggest that you pick a theory that presents an affirmative picture of your client's innocence.

Your final theory of the case should have persuasive facts, strong emotions, a legal basis for the listener to find your client innocent, vivid imagery, and concrete language.

Your final theory of the case should be client-centered, listener driven, and a compelling and believable story.

View the listener as a member of an adult education class. You are the teacher and you must teach the listener your theory. You can teach the listener through demonstrative or physical evidence, visual displays, re-enactments, and analogies.

Plan your case in reverse. Start at the end. If you are appearing before a jury, draft jury instructions tailored to your theory. In drafting the instructions, consider the law underlying your theory.

Draft your closing argument based on the evidence that led you to select the theory. Explain and support your theory while arguing against the government's theory.

During cross examination, your goal should not be to discover new facts. Ask questions about facts that you know will support your theory. If a line of questions does not advance your theory, do not use it.

Use the opening statement to introduce your theory to the listener.

===Factual Component===

When finalizing your theory of the case remember to include the most important facts, good, bad, and indifferent.

When developing a theory of the case to explain a conflict or criminal act, the defender should ask:

* What happened?
* What did they do, feel, want?
* What is the relationship between the parties involved?
* What are the physical particularities?
* What are the legal elements of the case?

===Legal Component===

Include the legal strategies and phrases you will use during the trial. Include the elements of the crime charged. For each element, list the evidence in support and the evidence rebutting the element. If there is little or no evidence in the case file to rebut an element, then part of the defense investigation is to look for such evidence.

===Emotional Component===

Include the emotions of the scene. Put the listener in the defendant's position.

===Vocabulary of the Case===

Use the vocabulary of the case in your theory. This, internal vocabulary, comes from the documents of the case such as police reports, witness statements, official records, and personal documents. The vocabulary of the case also comes from the testimony of the witnesses.
External vocabularies are the words you are able to get witnesses to use. Make the witness use vivid synonyms. External vocabulary must come from the witness and should not be over-dramatized. External vocabulary should be consistent and credible with the normal vocabulary of the witness.

== Storytelling==
Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the defense lawyer successfully executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judge's imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences. More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to uyse both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument.

The following suggestions may help the lawyer decide what language to use or avoid in stating a theory of the case on behalf of a client:
*The language of storytelling and the language the lawyer normally uses are very different. The lawyer should tell the story as if he is casually speaking with friends.
*Speak accurately. What you actually saw should match what you intend to say.
*Translate legal terms or abstract concepts into clear, common, and simple language.
*Use effective language.
**Avoid words or phrases with reserved meaning, for example "I think," "I believe," or "I will try to prove."
**Use active tense.
**Avoid unconscious hesitation or useless verb pauses.
**Use language that has the appropriate emotional and appealing elements.
**Use vivid language.
**Use concrete rather than abstract language.
**Use detailed and accurate rather than general or vague language.
*There should be sentence variety, but short sentences are best.
*Do not refer to notes while speaking.

==Conclusion==
Whether defense counsel chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof he must begin early on to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g., alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g., self-defense, insanity, entrapment). The approach you take will determine many subsequent actions. In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

Anyone handling a defense understands that it is necessary to look at the most obvious aspects. But it is also important to consider the facts beyond the obvious. It is the job of the defense to point out the whole picture, beyond the first glance, the most obvious. Developing the theory of the case points the directions for investigation, and the investigation is likely to uncover information that further develops the theory of the case.

----
See [[Trial]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]] and [[Direct Examination]]

----
{{Languages|Theory of the Case}}

India Criminal Defense Manual - Theory of the Case

2011-06-17T15:41:19Z

Saviles: /* Stage 2: Brainstorming */

== Introduction ==

Whether a lawyer chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof, his first step will be to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g. alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g. self-defense, insanity, entrapment).
Definition of Theory:
* Combination of facts and law which logically and emotionally convince the jury that the accused is innocent.
* More than a legal defense: it’s a plan for presenting the case, the framework for how to shape the law and the facts to get the desired outcome.
* Follow the simple structure of a story: beginning, middle, and end.

A Theory of the Case consists of three parts:
1. Relevant Law – the law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in the case
2. Facts of the Crime – All the irrefutable facts, including positive and negative facts.
3. Emotional Factors – Emotions usually influence people’s decisions more than logic. Thus, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder that influence as to how and why a case occurred.

Note: A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense suggests that there are two versions to the story. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation. Try to put forth a case that establishes your client as innocent rather than that there is simply not enough proof to convict him. A factfinder will be less willing to find a defendant innocent if he is portrayed as guilty.In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

== Creating a theory of the case ==
There are three stages to developing a theory of the defense.

===Stage 1: Acquisition===

Conduct interviews, discovery, and investigation to find all the facts relevant to the case, both positive and negative. Do not judge the facts at this stage of development. Review the indictment or criminal information to determine with what crime the accused is being charged. Check the law of the applicable jurisdiction to determine the essential elements of the crime. Utilize as many sources as are available to discover all you can about your client and the relationships involved in the case.

Common Sources: Police Reports, Witness statements, Private Investigation, Interviews, Public Records, Other Records

Check List
* Interview eyewitnesses to the alleged crime to obtain their version of the facts.
* Interview other potential witnesses who may have relevant information regarding the alleged crime, or the character of the accused.
* Inspect and examine carefully all documents and other materials made available by the prosecution.
* Examine the scene of the alleged crime.
* Check to determine if the accused person's constitutional rights were violated.
** When arrested, was the accused warned that he could remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against the accused?
** When arrested, was the accused advised that he had the right to an attorney (even if accused could not afford an attorney) and that the attorney could be present during any interrogation by the government?
** Was there an unreasonable search and seizure of accused person's person and/or property? Was there probable cause for any arrest or any search warrant?

===Stage 2: Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence. Think through the dominant emotions of the case and determine which work for and which work against your client.
Identify the irrefutable facts and make them part of the defense’s theory. These are facts such as written record, video recordings, some eyewitness accounts, etc.
Some facts that seem irrefutable can actually be undermined with further investigation. For example, an eyewitness account seems irrefutable, but if you can prove that the eyewitness had poor vision or was intoxicated, the fact is no longer irrefutable.

Identify the facts that seem to support the defense, those that seem to support the prosecution, and those that are neutral. Anticipate and prepare for the prosecution’s likely course of action: determine how they will make their case, which facts and evidence they will use, and how they will convey neutral facts.

Consider all the possible issues with both your case and that of the prosecution. Think through all the possible defenses that could logically apply.

Consider for example:
* Is there proof of the client’s presence at the scene?
* Was a crime actually committed?
* Is there evidence that the defendant might have been framed?
* Are the defendant’s actions justified or excusable? i.e. self defense, intoxication, duress, etc.
* Is the defendant guilty of a lesser charge?

Brainstorm all possible theories, then test them.

'''Tests:'''

'''Irrefutable Facts Test''' – Is the theory consistent with all of the irrefutable facts?
If not, you may want to consider using a different theory. A listener will not accept a theory inconsistent with facts that they consider irrefutable.

'''Plausibility Test''' – Is the theory plausible? Is it internally consistent?

If more than one theory passes this test, choose the theory that best applies to the factfinder’s world view. If, for example, the factfinder is a policeman, a theory that an officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that an officer is lying.

===Stage 3: Execution===

Select the theory that gives the defendant the best chance to persuade the factfinder in his favor. Choose only one theory: having more than one undermines the defender’s credibility.

'''Storytelling Methods'''

During the course of investigation and preparation for trial, the lawyer should gradually build and develop a theory of the case, as well as continually revising it. A theory of the case consists of three parts: the relevant law, facts of the crime and emotional factors. In the court, a lawyer uses a theory of the case to tell the client's story. The storytelling is composed of three parts: the general theory of the case, several supporting sub-theories, and the oral presentation to the court. Varied tones of voice, proper rhythm and tempo in questioning, body language, communication with your eyes, and application of different rhetorical skills make for effective storytelling, creating an atmosphere that both keeps the audience in suspense and engaged and builds a positive environment for the argument of defense. It is in such an environment that the court will evaluate the evidence.

== Work Form for Developing a Theory of the Case ==

Use the following questions to check that your theory of the case is complete, answer these questions:

1. What is your theory of the case?

2. Why do you believe this is the best theory of the case?

3. What is the relevant law? What are the elements of the offense? How will your theory of the case prove the client's innocence?

4. What are the irrefutable facts that you need to confront and explain in the theory of the case?

5. What are the facts in favor of the client? What are the facts against your client?

6. What is the key emotional theme in the case?

7. What emotional themes is the prosecutor most likely to use in his argument? How will you use your theory of the case and emotional theme to refute these emotional themes?

8. Make a list of the prosecution witnesses with specific questions attached to their names. Briefly point out the questioning styles.

9. Make a list of the defense witnesses, and under each of their names, write out how you plan to question them. Finally, briefly indicate the style of questioning.

10. List your main desired objective when directly questioning the accused. How will the accused's testimony strengthen your theory of the case?

11. Do you need to solve any problems with the evidence? Are these problems likely to strengthen or weaken your theory of the case? How will you explain the evidence that is inconsistent with your theory of the case?

12. Is it concise, logical, emotional, and understandable?

== Storytelling: Test your Theory of the case and Themes at Court ==

To defend your client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the judge who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, a plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your
theory of the case.

'''Why must the legal aid lawyer use storytelling methods in the court?'''

Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the legal aid lawyer successful executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judges' imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences.

More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to use both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument. "One who relies on reason" is more likely to change their judgment, because they often use the following thought pattern to reflect on and analyze a case: "My (the lawyer's) view is based on logic. Therefore, if you (the judge) reasonably point out any flaw in my thinking, I will consider changing my views." In contrast, "one who relies on his heart and emotions" will reflect on and analyze a case in a different way: "I am right, and you are wrong, so you must change your view."

== Conclusion ==

To develop a theory of the case, the legal aid lawyer should objectively evaluate the prosecution's case, and then, in accordance with applicable laws, structure a moving story based on the facts of the crime and emotions that will serve as a rebuttal. The theory of the case will influence the investigation, which witnesses will testify at trial, and what demonstrations will be held in court. Through telling a reasonable and convincing story, the lawyer can persuade the judge to find the client innocent, mitigate his sentence, or exempt him from criminal responsibility.
----
See [[India | India Criminal Defense Manual]]

India Criminal Defense Manual - Theory of the Case

2011-06-17T15:39:45Z

Saviles: /* Stage 1: Acquisition */

== Introduction ==

Whether a lawyer chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof, his first step will be to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g. alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g. self-defense, insanity, entrapment).
Definition of Theory:
* Combination of facts and law which logically and emotionally convince the jury that the accused is innocent.
* More than a legal defense: it’s a plan for presenting the case, the framework for how to shape the law and the facts to get the desired outcome.
* Follow the simple structure of a story: beginning, middle, and end.

A Theory of the Case consists of three parts:
1. Relevant Law – the law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in the case
2. Facts of the Crime – All the irrefutable facts, including positive and negative facts.
3. Emotional Factors – Emotions usually influence people’s decisions more than logic. Thus, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder that influence as to how and why a case occurred.

Note: A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense suggests that there are two versions to the story. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation. Try to put forth a case that establishes your client as innocent rather than that there is simply not enough proof to convict him. A factfinder will be less willing to find a defendant innocent if he is portrayed as guilty.In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

== Creating a theory of the case ==
There are three stages to developing a theory of the defense.

===Stage 1: Acquisition===

Conduct interviews, discovery, and investigation to find all the facts relevant to the case, both positive and negative. Do not judge the facts at this stage of development. Review the indictment or criminal information to determine with what crime the accused is being charged. Check the law of the applicable jurisdiction to determine the essential elements of the crime. Utilize as many sources as are available to discover all you can about your client and the relationships involved in the case.

Common Sources: Police Reports, Witness statements, Private Investigation, Interviews, Public Records, Other Records

Check List
* Interview eyewitnesses to the alleged crime to obtain their version of the facts.
* Interview other potential witnesses who may have relevant information regarding the alleged crime, or the character of the accused.
* Inspect and examine carefully all documents and other materials made available by the prosecution.
* Examine the scene of the alleged crime.
* Check to determine if the accused person's constitutional rights were violated.
** When arrested, was the accused warned that he could remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against the accused?
** When arrested, was the accused advised that he had the right to an attorney (even if accused could not afford an attorney) and that the attorney could be present during any interrogation by the government?
** Was there an unreasonable search and seizure of accused person's person and/or property? Was there probable cause for any arrest or any search warrant?

===Stage 2: Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence. Think through the dominant emotions of the case and determine which work for and which work against your client.
Identify the irrefutable facts and make them part of the defense’s theory. These are facts such as written record, video recordings, some eyewitness accounts, etc.
Some facts that seem irrefutable can actually be undermined with further investigation. For example, an eyewitness account seems irrefutable, but if you can prove that the eyewitness had poor vision or was intoxicated, the fact is no longer irrefutable.

Identify the facts that seem to support the defense, those that seem to support the prosecution, and those that are neutral. Anticipate and prepare for the prosecution’s likely course of action: determine how they will make their case, which facts and evidence they will use, and how they will convey neutral facts.

Consider all the possible issues with both your case and that of the prosecution. Think through all the possible defenses that could logically apply.
Consider for example:
* Is there proof of the client’s presence at the scene?
* Was a crime actually committed?
* Is there evidence that the defendant might have been framed?
* Are the defendant’s actions justified or excusable? i.e. self defense, intoxication, duress, etc.
* Is the defendant guilty of a lesser charge?

Brainstorm all possible theories, then test them.

'''Tests:'''

'''Irrefutable Facts Test''' – Is the theory consistent with all of the irrefutable facts?
If not, you may want to consider using a different theory. A listener will not accept a theory inconsistent with facts that they consider irrefutable.

'''Plausibility Test''' – Is the theory plausible? Is it internally consistent?

If more than one theory passes this test, choose the theory that best applies to the factfinder’s world view. If, for example, the factfinder is a policeman, a theory that an officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that an officer is lying.

===Stage 3: Execution===

Select the theory that gives the defendant the best chance to persuade the factfinder in his favor. Choose only one theory: having more than one undermines the defender’s credibility.

'''Storytelling Methods'''

During the course of investigation and preparation for trial, the lawyer should gradually build and develop a theory of the case, as well as continually revising it. A theory of the case consists of three parts: the relevant law, facts of the crime and emotional factors. In the court, a lawyer uses a theory of the case to tell the client's story. The storytelling is composed of three parts: the general theory of the case, several supporting sub-theories, and the oral presentation to the court. Varied tones of voice, proper rhythm and tempo in questioning, body language, communication with your eyes, and application of different rhetorical skills make for effective storytelling, creating an atmosphere that both keeps the audience in suspense and engaged and builds a positive environment for the argument of defense. It is in such an environment that the court will evaluate the evidence.

== Work Form for Developing a Theory of the Case ==

Use the following questions to check that your theory of the case is complete, answer these questions:

1. What is your theory of the case?

2. Why do you believe this is the best theory of the case?

3. What is the relevant law? What are the elements of the offense? How will your theory of the case prove the client's innocence?

4. What are the irrefutable facts that you need to confront and explain in the theory of the case?

5. What are the facts in favor of the client? What are the facts against your client?

6. What is the key emotional theme in the case?

7. What emotional themes is the prosecutor most likely to use in his argument? How will you use your theory of the case and emotional theme to refute these emotional themes?

8. Make a list of the prosecution witnesses with specific questions attached to their names. Briefly point out the questioning styles.

9. Make a list of the defense witnesses, and under each of their names, write out how you plan to question them. Finally, briefly indicate the style of questioning.

10. List your main desired objective when directly questioning the accused. How will the accused's testimony strengthen your theory of the case?

11. Do you need to solve any problems with the evidence? Are these problems likely to strengthen or weaken your theory of the case? How will you explain the evidence that is inconsistent with your theory of the case?

12. Is it concise, logical, emotional, and understandable?

== Storytelling: Test your Theory of the case and Themes at Court ==

To defend your client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the judge who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, a plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your
theory of the case.

'''Why must the legal aid lawyer use storytelling methods in the court?'''

Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the legal aid lawyer successful executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judges' imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences.

More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to use both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument. "One who relies on reason" is more likely to change their judgment, because they often use the following thought pattern to reflect on and analyze a case: "My (the lawyer's) view is based on logic. Therefore, if you (the judge) reasonably point out any flaw in my thinking, I will consider changing my views." In contrast, "one who relies on his heart and emotions" will reflect on and analyze a case in a different way: "I am right, and you are wrong, so you must change your view."

== Conclusion ==

To develop a theory of the case, the legal aid lawyer should objectively evaluate the prosecution's case, and then, in accordance with applicable laws, structure a moving story based on the facts of the crime and emotions that will serve as a rebuttal. The theory of the case will influence the investigation, which witnesses will testify at trial, and what demonstrations will be held in court. Through telling a reasonable and convincing story, the lawyer can persuade the judge to find the client innocent, mitigate his sentence, or exempt him from criminal responsibility.
----
See [[India | India Criminal Defense Manual]]

India Criminal Defense Manual - Theory of the Case

2011-06-17T15:39:21Z

Saviles: /* Stage 2: Brainstorming */

== Introduction ==

Whether a lawyer chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof, his first step will be to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g. alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g. self-defense, insanity, entrapment).
Definition of Theory:
* Combination of facts and law which logically and emotionally convince the jury that the accused is innocent.
* More than a legal defense: it’s a plan for presenting the case, the framework for how to shape the law and the facts to get the desired outcome.
* Follow the simple structure of a story: beginning, middle, and end.

A Theory of the Case consists of three parts:
1. Relevant Law – the law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in the case
2. Facts of the Crime – All the irrefutable facts, including positive and negative facts.
3. Emotional Factors – Emotions usually influence people’s decisions more than logic. Thus, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder that influence as to how and why a case occurred.

Note: A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense suggests that there are two versions to the story. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation. Try to put forth a case that establishes your client as innocent rather than that there is simply not enough proof to convict him. A factfinder will be less willing to find a defendant innocent if he is portrayed as guilty.In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

== Creating a theory of the case ==
There are three stages to developing a theory of the defense.

===Stage 1: Acquisition===

Conduct interviews, discovery, and investigation to find all the facts relevant to the case, both positive and negative. Do not judge the facts at this stage of developement. Review the indictment or criminal information to determine with what crime the accused is being charged. Check the law of the applicable jurisdiction to determine the essential elements of the crime. Utilize as many sources as are available to discover all you can about your client and the relationships involved in the case.

Common Sources: Police Reports, Witness statements, Private Investigation, Interviews, Public Records, Other Records
Check List
* Interview eyewitnesses to the alleged crime to obtain their version of the facts.
* Interview other potential witnesses who may have relevant information regarding the alleged crime, or the character of the accused.
* Inspect and examine carefully all documents and other materials made available by the prosecution.
* Examine the scene of the alleged crime.
* Check to determine if the accused person's constitutional rights were violated.
** When arrested, was the accused warned that he could remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against the accused?
** When arrested, was the accused advised that he had the right to an attorney (even if accused could not afford an attorney) and that the attorney could be present during any interrogation by the government?
** Was there an unreasonable search and seizure of accused person's person and/or property? Was there probable cause for any arrest or any search warrant?

===Stage 2: Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence. Think through the dominant emotions of the case and determine which work for and which work against your client.
Identify the irrefutable facts and make them part of the defense’s theory. These are facts such as written record, video recordings, some eyewitness accounts, etc.
Some facts that seem irrefutable can actually be undermined with further investigation. For example, an eyewitness account seems irrefutable, but if you can prove that the eyewitness had poor vision or was intoxicated, the fact is no longer irrefutable.

Identify the facts that seem to support the defense, those that seem to support the prosecution, and those that are neutral. Anticipate and prepare for the prosecution’s likely course of action: determine how they will make their case, which facts and evidence they will use, and how they will convey neutral facts.

Consider all the possible issues with both your case and that of the prosecution. Think through all the possible defenses that could logically apply.
Consider for example:
* Is there proof of the client’s presence at the scene?
* Was a crime actually committed?
* Is there evidence that the defendant might have been framed?
* Are the defendant’s actions justified or excusable? i.e. self defense, intoxication, duress, etc.
* Is the defendant guilty of a lesser charge?

Brainstorm all possible theories, then test them.

'''Tests:'''

'''Irrefutable Facts Test''' – Is the theory consistent with all of the irrefutable facts?
If not, you may want to consider using a different theory. A listener will not accept a theory inconsistent with facts that they consider irrefutable.

'''Plausibility Test''' – Is the theory plausible? Is it internally consistent?

If more than one theory passes this test, choose the theory that best applies to the factfinder’s world view. If, for example, the factfinder is a policeman, a theory that an officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that an officer is lying.

===Stage 3: Execution===

Select the theory that gives the defendant the best chance to persuade the factfinder in his favor. Choose only one theory: having more than one undermines the defender’s credibility.

'''Storytelling Methods'''

During the course of investigation and preparation for trial, the lawyer should gradually build and develop a theory of the case, as well as continually revising it. A theory of the case consists of three parts: the relevant law, facts of the crime and emotional factors. In the court, a lawyer uses a theory of the case to tell the client's story. The storytelling is composed of three parts: the general theory of the case, several supporting sub-theories, and the oral presentation to the court. Varied tones of voice, proper rhythm and tempo in questioning, body language, communication with your eyes, and application of different rhetorical skills make for effective storytelling, creating an atmosphere that both keeps the audience in suspense and engaged and builds a positive environment for the argument of defense. It is in such an environment that the court will evaluate the evidence.

== Work Form for Developing a Theory of the Case ==

Use the following questions to check that your theory of the case is complete, answer these questions:

1. What is your theory of the case?

2. Why do you believe this is the best theory of the case?

3. What is the relevant law? What are the elements of the offense? How will your theory of the case prove the client's innocence?

4. What are the irrefutable facts that you need to confront and explain in the theory of the case?

5. What are the facts in favor of the client? What are the facts against your client?

6. What is the key emotional theme in the case?

7. What emotional themes is the prosecutor most likely to use in his argument? How will you use your theory of the case and emotional theme to refute these emotional themes?

8. Make a list of the prosecution witnesses with specific questions attached to their names. Briefly point out the questioning styles.

9. Make a list of the defense witnesses, and under each of their names, write out how you plan to question them. Finally, briefly indicate the style of questioning.

10. List your main desired objective when directly questioning the accused. How will the accused's testimony strengthen your theory of the case?

11. Do you need to solve any problems with the evidence? Are these problems likely to strengthen or weaken your theory of the case? How will you explain the evidence that is inconsistent with your theory of the case?

12. Is it concise, logical, emotional, and understandable?

== Storytelling: Test your Theory of the case and Themes at Court ==

To defend your client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the judge who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, a plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your
theory of the case.

'''Why must the legal aid lawyer use storytelling methods in the court?'''

Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the legal aid lawyer successful executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judges' imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences.

More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to use both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument. "One who relies on reason" is more likely to change their judgment, because they often use the following thought pattern to reflect on and analyze a case: "My (the lawyer's) view is based on logic. Therefore, if you (the judge) reasonably point out any flaw in my thinking, I will consider changing my views." In contrast, "one who relies on his heart and emotions" will reflect on and analyze a case in a different way: "I am right, and you are wrong, so you must change your view."

== Conclusion ==

To develop a theory of the case, the legal aid lawyer should objectively evaluate the prosecution's case, and then, in accordance with applicable laws, structure a moving story based on the facts of the crime and emotions that will serve as a rebuttal. The theory of the case will influence the investigation, which witnesses will testify at trial, and what demonstrations will be held in court. Through telling a reasonable and convincing story, the lawyer can persuade the judge to find the client innocent, mitigate his sentence, or exempt him from criminal responsibility.
----
See [[India | India Criminal Defense Manual]]

India Criminal Defense Manual - Theory of the Case

2011-06-17T15:38:49Z

Saviles:

== Introduction ==

Whether a lawyer chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof, his first step will be to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g. alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g. self-defense, insanity, entrapment).
Definition of Theory:
* Combination of facts and law which logically and emotionally convince the jury that the accused is innocent.
* More than a legal defense: it’s a plan for presenting the case, the framework for how to shape the law and the facts to get the desired outcome.
* Follow the simple structure of a story: beginning, middle, and end.

A Theory of the Case consists of three parts:
1. Relevant Law – the law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in the case
2. Facts of the Crime – All the irrefutable facts, including positive and negative facts.
3. Emotional Factors – Emotions usually influence people’s decisions more than logic. Thus, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder that influence as to how and why a case occurred.

Note: A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense suggests that there are two versions to the story. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation. Try to put forth a case that establishes your client as innocent rather than that there is simply not enough proof to convict him. A factfinder will be less willing to find a defendant innocent if he is portrayed as guilty.In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

== Creating a theory of the case ==
There are three stages to developing a theory of the defense.

===Stage 1: Acquisition===

Conduct interviews, discovery, and investigation to find all the facts relevant to the case, both positive and negative. Do not judge the facts at this stage of developement. Review the indictment or criminal information to determine with what crime the accused is being charged. Check the law of the applicable jurisdiction to determine the essential elements of the crime. Utilize as many sources as are available to discover all you can about your client and the relationships involved in the case.

Common Sources: Police Reports, Witness statements, Private Investigation, Interviews, Public Records, Other Records
Check List
* Interview eyewitnesses to the alleged crime to obtain their version of the facts.
* Interview other potential witnesses who may have relevant information regarding the alleged crime, or the character of the accused.
* Inspect and examine carefully all documents and other materials made available by the prosecution.
* Examine the scene of the alleged crime.
* Check to determine if the accused person's constitutional rights were violated.
** When arrested, was the accused warned that he could remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against the accused?
** When arrested, was the accused advised that he had the right to an attorney (even if accused could not afford an attorney) and that the attorney could be present during any interrogation by the government?
** Was there an unreasonable search and seizure of accused person's person and/or property? Was there probable cause for any arrest or any search warrant?

===Stage 2: Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence. Think through the dominant emotions of the case and determine which work for and which work against your client.
Identify the irrefutable facts and make them part of the defense’s theory. These are facts such as written record, video recordings, some eyewitness accounts, etc.
Some facts that seem irrefutable can actually be undermined with further investigation. For example, an eyewitness account seems irrefutable, but if you can prove that the eyewitness had poor vision or was intoxicated, the fact is no longer irrefutable.

Identify the facts that seem to support the defense, those that seem to support the prosecution, and those that are neutral. Anticipate and prepare for the prosecution’s likely course of action: determine how they will make their case, which facts and evidence they will use, and how they will convey neutral facts.

Consider all the possible issues with both your case and that of the prosecution. Think through all the possible defenses that could logically apply.
Consider for example:
* Is there proof of the client’s presence at the scene?
* Was a crime actually committed?
* Is there evidence that the defendant might have been framed?
* Are the defendant’s actions justified or excusable? i.e. self defense, intoxication, duress, etc.
* Is the defendant guilty of a lesser charge?

Brainstorm all possible theories, then test them.

'''Tests:'''
'''Irrefutable Facts Test''' – Is the theory consistent with all of the irrefutable facts?
If not, you may want to consider using a different theory. A listener will not accept a theory inconsistent with facts that they consider irrefutable.

'''Plausibility Test''' – Is the theory plausible? Is it internally consistent?

If more than one theory passes this test, choose the theory that best applies to the factfinder’s world view. If, for example, the factfinder is a policeman, a theory that an officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that an officer is lying.

===Stage 3: Execution===

Select the theory that gives the defendant the best chance to persuade the factfinder in his favor. Choose only one theory: having more than one undermines the defender’s credibility.

'''Storytelling Methods'''

During the course of investigation and preparation for trial, the lawyer should gradually build and develop a theory of the case, as well as continually revising it. A theory of the case consists of three parts: the relevant law, facts of the crime and emotional factors. In the court, a lawyer uses a theory of the case to tell the client's story. The storytelling is composed of three parts: the general theory of the case, several supporting sub-theories, and the oral presentation to the court. Varied tones of voice, proper rhythm and tempo in questioning, body language, communication with your eyes, and application of different rhetorical skills make for effective storytelling, creating an atmosphere that both keeps the audience in suspense and engaged and builds a positive environment for the argument of defense. It is in such an environment that the court will evaluate the evidence.

== Work Form for Developing a Theory of the Case ==

Use the following questions to check that your theory of the case is complete, answer these questions:

1. What is your theory of the case?

2. Why do you believe this is the best theory of the case?

3. What is the relevant law? What are the elements of the offense? How will your theory of the case prove the client's innocence?

4. What are the irrefutable facts that you need to confront and explain in the theory of the case?

5. What are the facts in favor of the client? What are the facts against your client?

6. What is the key emotional theme in the case?

7. What emotional themes is the prosecutor most likely to use in his argument? How will you use your theory of the case and emotional theme to refute these emotional themes?

8. Make a list of the prosecution witnesses with specific questions attached to their names. Briefly point out the questioning styles.

9. Make a list of the defense witnesses, and under each of their names, write out how you plan to question them. Finally, briefly indicate the style of questioning.

10. List your main desired objective when directly questioning the accused. How will the accused's testimony strengthen your theory of the case?

11. Do you need to solve any problems with the evidence? Are these problems likely to strengthen or weaken your theory of the case? How will you explain the evidence that is inconsistent with your theory of the case?

12. Is it concise, logical, emotional, and understandable?

== Storytelling: Test your Theory of the case and Themes at Court ==

To defend your client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the judge who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, a plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your
theory of the case.

'''Why must the legal aid lawyer use storytelling methods in the court?'''

Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosphere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the legal aid lawyer successful executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judges' imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences.

More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to use both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument. "One who relies on reason" is more likely to change their judgment, because they often use the following thought pattern to reflect on and analyze a case: "My (the lawyer's) view is based on logic. Therefore, if you (the judge) reasonably point out any flaw in my thinking, I will consider changing my views." In contrast, "one who relies on his heart and emotions" will reflect on and analyze a case in a different way: "I am right, and you are wrong, so you must change your view."

== Conclusion ==

To develop a theory of the case, the legal aid lawyer should objectively evaluate the prosecution's case, and then, in accordance with applicable laws, structure a moving story based on the facts of the crime and emotions that will serve as a rebuttal. The theory of the case will influence the investigation, which witnesses will testify at trial, and what demonstrations will be held in court. Through telling a reasonable and convincing story, the lawyer can persuade the judge to find the client innocent, mitigate his sentence, or exempt him from criminal responsibility.
----
See [[India | India Criminal Defense Manual]]

Trial/es

2011-06-10T09:00:42Z

Saviles:

'''Juicio'''

Juicio es la pieza central del sistema de justicia penal común. En muchos casos es la primera vez que el tribunal escuchará el testimonio directo de testigos. Al final del juicio un juez o un jurado se encarga de hacer una determinación objetiva de la culpabilidad del acusado. Las instrucciones del jurado guía sí mismo y el juez en esta determinación, dándoles un marco legal para su decisión. En algunas jurisdicciones, el jurado puede ser el buscador de hecho y el buscador de la ley. En el derecho común la fiscalía generalmente se evidencia primera, presentando evidencia y testigos en un esfuerzo para demostrar más allá de toda duda razonable que el acusado es culpable del delito imputado.

En una jurisdicción donde la fiscalía lleva esta pesada carga, el acusado no necesita presentar ninguna evidencia para ganar el caso. Sin embargo, en la práctica, el acusado generalmente debe plantear algunas dudas razonables para prevalecer.

Una de las decisiones más importantes en un juicio del derecho común es si el acusado testificará.

Los siguientes son habilidades esenciales necesarios para la preparación y ejecución de la estrategia de juicio de un acusado.

*[[Theory of the Case/es |Teoría del Caso]]
*Voir Dire
*Declaraciones de apertura
*[[Direct Examination/es | El examen interrogatorio directo ]]
*Cruz- examen interrogatorio
*[[Rebuttal Examination/es|Refutación de investigación]]
*[[Closing Statements/es|Alegatos de Clausura]]

----

[[Criminal_Defense_Wiki/es | El Wiki para los Defensores Penal]]

{{Languages|Trial}}

Trial/es

2011-06-10T08:58:41Z

Saviles:

'''Juicio'''

Juicio es la pieza central del sistema de justicia penal común. En muchos casos es la primera vez que el tribunal escuchará el testimonio directo de testigos. Al final del juicio un juez o un jurado se encarga de hacer una determinación objetiva de la culpabilidad del acusado. Las instrucciones del jurado guía sí mismo y el juez en esta determinación, dándoles un marco legal para su decisión. En algunas jurisdicciones, el jurado puede ser el buscador de hecho y el buscador de la ley. En el derecho común la fiscalía generalmente se evidencia primera, presentando evidencia y testigos en un esfuerzo para demostrar más allá de toda duda razonable que el acusado es culpable del delito imputado.

En una jurisdicción donde la fiscalía lleva esta pesada carga, el acusado no necesita presentar ninguna evidencia para ganar el caso. Sin embargo, en la práctica, el acusado generalmente debe plantear algunas dudas razonables para prevalecer.

Una de las decisiones más importantes en un juicio del derecho común es si el acusado testificará.

Los siguientes son habilidades esenciales necesarios para la preparación y ejecución de la estrategia de juicio de un acusado.

*[[Theory of the Case/es |Teoría del Caso]]
*Voir Dire
*Declaraciones de apertura
*[[Direct Examination/es | El examen interrogatorio directo ]]
*Cruz- examen interrogatorio
*[[Rebuttal Examination/es|Refutación de investigación]]
*[[Closing Statements/es|Declaraciones de clausura]]

----

[[Criminal_Defense_Wiki/es | El Wiki para los Defensores Penal]]

{{Languages|Trial}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:56:24Z

Saviles: /* El poder del juez o jurado */

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==

El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.

== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.

== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:

* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.

* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.

* '''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?

* '''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

* '''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.

* '''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.

* '''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.

=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===

Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.

* '''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.

* '''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”

* '''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.

* '''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.

* '''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===

También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.

* '''Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones''' - El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.

* '''Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo''' – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.

* '''Valor del juicio con jurado''' - Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de Alegatos de Clausura y Transcripciones]]

----
See [[Trial/es]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:55:31Z

Saviles: /* El poder del juez o jurado */

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==

El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.

== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.

== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:

* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.

* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.

* '''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?

* '''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

* '''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.

* '''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.

* '''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.

=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===

Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.

* '''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.

* '''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”

* '''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.

* '''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.

* '''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===

También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.

* '''Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones''' - El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.

* '''Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo''' – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.

* '''Valor del juicio con jurado''' - Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse [[Sample Closing Argument Transcripts|Ejemplos de Alegatos de Clausura y Transcripciones]]

----
See [[Trial/es]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:54:16Z

Saviles:

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==

El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.

== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.

== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:

* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.

* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.

* '''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?

* '''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

* '''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.

* '''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.

* '''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.

=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===

Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.

* '''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.

* '''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”

* '''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.

* '''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.

* '''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===

También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.

* '''Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones''' - El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.

* '''Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo''' – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.

* '''Valor del juicio con jurado''' - Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse [Sample Closing Argument Transcripts|Ejemplos de Alegatos de Clausura y Transcripciones]

----
See [[Trial/es]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:50:43Z

Saviles: /* El poder del juez o jurado */

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==

El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.

== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.

== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:

* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.

* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.

'''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?

'''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

'''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.

'''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.

'''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.

=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===

Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.

'''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.

'''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”

'''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.

'''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.

'''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===

También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.

* '''Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones''' - El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.

* '''Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo''' – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.

* '''Valor del juicio con jurado''' - Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse [Sample Closing Argument Transcripts|Ejemplos de Alegatos de Clausura y Transcripciones]

----
See [[Trial/es]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:47:04Z

Saviles:

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==

El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.

== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.

== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:

* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.

* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.

'''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?

'''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

'''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.

'''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.

'''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.

=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===

Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.

'''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.

'''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”

'''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.

'''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.

'''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===

También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.

'''Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones''' - El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.

'''Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo''' – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.

'''Valor del juicio con jurado''' - Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse [Ejemplos de Alegatos de Clausura y Transcripciones]

----
See [[Trial/es]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]]

{{Languages|Closing Statements}}

Closing Statements/es

2011-06-10T08:42:03Z

Saviles: Created page with "= Alegatos de Clausura = {| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue" |- |<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3p..."

= Alegatos de Clausura =

{| style="float: right; padding:10px; margin:5px 20px 20px 20px; width: 250px; border: 1px solid darkblue"
|-
|<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">RECURSOS PARA ALEGATOS DE CLAUSURA</p>
* [[Sample Closing Arguments Transcripts|Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones ]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CONCEPTOS RELACIONADOS</p>
* [[Theory of the Case|La Teoria del Caso]]
* [[Opening Statements|Alegatos iniciales]]
* [[Direct Examination|El interrogatorio directo]]
* [[Cross-Examination|La repregunta]]
<p id="mp-dyk-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#143966; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#ffffff; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">LEGAL TRAINING RESOURCE CENTER</p>
* [http://elearning.ibj.org Cursos de Elearning para abogados defensores]
|}
== Preparatorias ==
El alegato de clausura es la última oportunidad en un juicio para el abogado defensor a hablar al juez o al jurado antes de que comiencen la deliberación. El alegato de clausura de la defensa generalmente se lleva a cabo entre el alegato de clausura del fiscal y el interrogatorio de refutación fiscal. El propósito del alegato de clausura es dar un resumen del caso de la defensa o sea, explicar el significado de las pruebas, presentar una teoría positiva, involucrar al juez y al jurado intelectual y emocionalmente, y explicar por qué el acusado es inocente. La defensa debería también señalar las parcialidades y incongruencias en el caso del fiscal. No nueva información se debería presentar en el alegato de clausura.

El alegato de clausura es muy parecido con el alegato inicial menos que el alegato de clausura se enfoca en los hechos concretos presentados en el juicio. Así que el alegato de clausura debería complementar el alegato inicial, continuando a presentar la teoría del caso del acusado.
== La Estructura del Argumento ==

Cuando se planifica el argumento de clausura, es importante:
* Usar una estructura simple y lógica que repita el tema presentado en el alegato inicial.
* Construir en ese tema mientras refuta a los testigos y conclusiones del fiscal.
* Responder a preguntas que usted crea que el o el jurado se estén haciendo.
* Presentar cada punto nuevo con transiciones claras.
* Apelar a las emociones del juez o el jurado.
* Usar la lógica para ofrecer explicaciones que sean más favorables a su cliente o que descuenten las conclusiones del fiscal.
* Elaborar una conclusión fuerte.
== Objetivos y técnicas ==
La meta del alegato de clausura del abogado defensor es juntar las pruebas de la defensa de una forma fuerte y persuasiva para el juez o el jurado. Durante los alegatos de clausura, el abogado defensor debería:
* Humanizar al acusado: usar el nombre del acusado, compartir hechos positivos de su vida, ayudar al juez o al jurado a identificarse con el acusado.
* Discutir la ley relacionada de una forma provechosa para el acusado en un lenguaje claro y conciso que el jurado pueda entender.
* Escuchar cuidadosamente las declaraciones del fiscal y los testigos para explotar cualquier debilidad.
* Reconocer y refutar las afirmaciones del fiscal en contra del acusado.
* Cerrar con una repetición fuerte del tema clave y pedir al juez o al jurado un fallo de inocencia.

El fiscal escuchará cuidadosamente al argumento del la defensa para contestar en la refutación. Pero no pierda demasiado tiempo anticipando sus argumentos finales; simplemente concéntrese en hacer fuerte el argumento de clausura de la defensa.

== Pronunciar el Alegato de Clausura ==

Prepare el alegato de clausura con antelación, anticipando las pruebas, testigos, y los asuntos que puedan surgir durante el juicio. Empero, el alegato de clausura no se finalizará hasta que todas las pruebas se presenten y el fiscal haya dado su argumento de clausura. Así que la cantidad de énfasis puesta en ciertas pruebas puede cambiar durante el juicio. Sin embargo, hay técnicas simples que se deberían usar cuando uno pronuncia el alegato de clausura.
* Hable claramente y use vocabulario que su auditorio conozca.
* Hable por un tiempo razonable y a un volumen razonable.
* Sea consciente de su lenguaje corporal: expresiones del rostro, contacto visual, distancia física de su auditorio, etcétera.
* Evite hacer movimientos que distraigan: caminar, juguetear, etc.
* Intente evitar el uso de ripio. Si se le olvida su argumento, pausa por un momento para reorganizar sus pensamientos.
* Comuníquese con el juez o el jurado; Diríjase directamente en la clausura, enseña respeto, haga hincapié en su poder y responsabilidad.
* Prepare y memorice el alegato de clausura con tanto adelanto como sea práctico dada la verosimilitud de nuevos hechos.

== Ejemplos de Temas Para el Alegato de Clausura para un Abogado Defensor ==

Los temas son maneras de conectar nítidamente los argumentos de la defensa a lo largo del caso. Un tema bueno puede persuadir a un juez o jurado o ayudar a recordar hechos claves. Enfóquese en encontrar una frase corta y memorable que abarque la emoción central o la teoría del caso a la que se puede referirse a lo largo del juicio. Varios temas comunes son:

=== La pesada carga de la prueba del fiscal ===

Si su jurisdicción pone la carga de la prueba en el fiscal, enfatizar esta carga pesada es un tema poderoso. Puede que un jurado esté indeciso en cuanto a la culpabilidad del acusado, pero si se dan cuenta que solo necesitan una duda razonable, será más probable que se decidan por un fallo de inocencia.
'''La prueba no es el partido que al que cree''' - Puede que el fiscal le sugiera que la prueba es simplemente el partido al que cree. Lo hacen invariablemente- y es incorrecto. Esa no es la prueba. La prueba es esta: “ ¿Usted tiene una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable del crimen que han alegado?” ¿Hay por lo menos una duda razonable que (el nombre del acusado) haya sido acusado falsamente?
'''La duda razonable como una convicción perdurable de la verdad de un alegato''' - La duda razonable no es sólo una duda posible. Sabemos que, como un asunto de experiencia humana, todo relacionado con los asuntos humanos está abierto a alguna posible duda o algún tipo de duda imaginaria. Yo le sugiero que una duda razonable de la culpabilidad de alguien es cuando, después de considerar y comparar y contraponer todas las pruebas, no le dio a usted lugar de tener la convicción de la verdad de la carga que le han puesto al acusado.

'''La duda razonable con el significado, por lo menos “convencido firmemente” de la culpabilidad''' – Lo que sea que usted piense del significado de la duda razonable, yo le digo que significa, por lo menos, que usted, como una parte responsable del jurado, no puede condenar a una persona de un crimen hasta que esté firmemente convencido, personalmente, de la culpabilidad del acusado.
'''Las pruebas no pueden dejar espacio por la duda razonable''' - Por su juramento, no puede condenar al acusado si cuando después de consideración de las pruebas, aún queda lugar para una duda razonable en cuanto a si el acusado es culpable de esta carga. Es sólo cuando las pruebas no dejan lugar ningún para la duda razonable que se le permite que le encuentre culpable al acusado.
'''Duda razonable conocido por corazón y presentimiento''' - Usted conocerá la duda razonable, no sólo por la razón pero también por su corazón y sus presentimientos. No es sólo un concepto legal. También es un sentimiento, una intuición.

Si, como en Singapur, hay casos donde la carga de la prueba se le traslada al acusado, no es bueno hacer hincapié en este tema.
=== Desacreditar a los coacusados y otros testigos con antecedentes penales ===
Muchos casos criminales son construidos sobre los testimonios de coacusados que cooperan o personas con antecedentes penales. El uso de este asunto como tema permite a la defensa a desacreditar con más facilidad tales informantes y coconspiradores que cooperan.
'''Sea escéptico desde el principio del caso''' – Le dije a ustedes, en el mero principio de este caso, que ustedes iban a escuchar testimonios de personas parciales, y que, sin excepción, los datos muestran que cada uno de ellas había hecho algún tipo de pacto o que cada uno de ellas tuvo una razón por la que dijeron lo que dijeron. Yo les pedí que fueran escépticos y que pusieran atención no solo a lo que dijeron sino también a su forma de decirlo y cómo lo dijeron y por qué lo dijeron. Yo les pedí que mantuvieran la mente abierta a eso porque ustedes no tienen que aceptar de cara lo que dijeron. Ese es su prerrogativa como jurado. Están libres a cuestionar las tácticas usadas por el fiscal.
'''La credibilidad de los testigos del fiscal''' - La prueba de credibilidad no cae en más nadie que el fiscal. Ellos deben comprobar que lo que (el nombre del informante o coconspirador) les dijo fuera la verdad más allá que cualquiera duda razonable. No pueden trasladar la carga de comprobar la honradez de su testigo, diciendo, “Pues, que tipo de testigo esperan que nosotros tengamos?”
'''El fiscal respondiendo por la credibilidad y la veracidad de cómplices o testigos coconspiradores''' - ¿Cómo pueden creer alguien como (nombre del cómplice/coconspirador)? Este es un caso tipo patas arriba. Me maravilla porque aquí tenemos al gobierno, por medio de su fiscal, respondiendo por la credibilidad y veracidad de un criminal conocido.
'''El estrado de testigos en este caso llegó a ser un lugar tétrico para personas sospechosas''' - Durante el caso del fiscal, este estrado (señalando el estrado) fue un lugar tétrico para unas personas sospechosas.
'''La primera carrera del informante como criminal se transformó en una segunda carrera como testigo profesional''' – (Nombre al informante) hizo una carrera de crímenes de faltas y violentos crímenes. Ahora está haciendo una segunda carrera de ser un testigo informante del gobierno.

=== El poder del juez o jurado ===
También es persuasivo enfatizar para el juez o el jurado la importancia del papel que ellos desempeñan en el sistema. La adulación es una forma rápida de ganar votos para tu lado.
Llevar el asunto a discutir el papel y los deberes del jurado y la importancia de su poder para tomar decisiones.- El juez les dijo al comienzo del caso que no se deberían ofender si los abogados no les hablan mientras entren y vayan. La ley me prohíbe hablar con ustedes fuera de la corte. Espero que ustedes entiendan que es por eso que hemos tenido que mantenernos a distancia. Si pasamos alguna vez en el pasillo o si compartimos un elevador y pareció que intentaba desconocerles, es porque la ley lo requiere, no porque lo disfrute. Nunca hubo falta de respeto intencional. Sí, efectivamente ahora que estamos en el momento del juicio en que yo les puedo hablar directamente, me gustaría decir algunas cosas de cuan importante ustedes son y el sentimiento de orgullo, poder y obligación que ustedes deberían sentir cuando hacen su trabajo como jurado.
Llevar el asunto al propósito, poder y obligación implicados que ser jurado trae consigo. – Pronto, ustedes entrarán en la sala del jurado para decidir si las pruebas han tachado todas y cada duda razonable de que si (nombre del acusado) hizo lo que el fiscal alega. Ojalá pudiera estar con ustedes cuando revisen los hechos de este caso. Pero antes de discutir las pruebas, Quisiera tomar un momento para charlar con ustedes de su propósito como jurado, el poder que tienen y la obligación que tienen que ser jurado trae consigo.
Valor del juicio con jurado- Es bueno que tengamos un juicio con jurado. No tenemos un juicio con comisión o juicio con oficiales policíacos. Tenemos juicio con jurado, con ciudadanos.

Para ejemplos de alegatos de clausura verdaderos, Véanse Ejemplos de alegatos de clausura y transcripciones
===

Confessions

2011-06-06T13:07:22Z

Saviles: /* Three Factors in False Confessions */

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corroboration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receiving the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to incriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</blockquote>

<blockquote>(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,</blockquote>

<blockquote>The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions

2011-06-06T13:06:56Z

Saviles: /* Three Factors in False Confessions */

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.<ref>hi

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receiving the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to incriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</blockquote>

<blockquote>(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,</blockquote>

<blockquote>The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions

2011-06-06T13:06:20Z

Saviles:

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receiving the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to incriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</blockquote>

<blockquote>(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,</blockquote>

<blockquote>The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:14:00Z

Saviles: /* Le Royaume-Uni */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière. »<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote>1) Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references/>
{{languages|Confessions}}

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:12:10Z

Saviles: /* L’Australie */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote>1) Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references/>
{{languages|Confessions}}

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:11:25Z

Saviles: /* Réferences */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references/>
{{languages|Confessions}}

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:10:52Z

Saviles: /* Réferences */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
</references>
{{languages|Confessions}}

Confessions

2011-06-06T11:08:57Z

Saviles: /* Germany */

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receivint the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to imcriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</blockquote>

<blockquote>(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,</blockquote>

<blockquote>The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:08:41Z

Saviles: /* L’Allemagne */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:04:16Z

Saviles: /* Les Etats-Unis */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref>
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues. Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves. Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.
L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose. La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:01:25Z

Saviles: /* Les Etats-Unis */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues. Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves. Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.
L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose. La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T11:00:10Z

Saviles: /* L’Exigence de Corroboration */

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le [[Corpus Delecti]] (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississipi, 297 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues. Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves. Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.
L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose. La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T10:58:18Z

Saviles:

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.

La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.

== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.

Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.

Parfois appelé le Corpus Delecti (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.

Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.

Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants:

<blockquote>(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,</blockquote>
<blockquote>(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal;</blockquote>
<blockquote>(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref></blockquote>

= Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions =

== L’Inde ==

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

== Les Etats-Unis ==

'''[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]]''' – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de [[Brown v. Mississipi, 297 278 (1936)]] le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.

L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.<ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances. »<ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.

Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]]''' - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.

Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :

<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

== Le Kenya ==

Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

== L’Allemagne ==
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues. Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves. Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.
L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose. La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

== Le Royaume-Uni ==

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes:

<blockquote>1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage;</blockquote>

<blockquote>2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité;</blockquote>

<blockquote>3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref></blockquote>

Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ».<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.

Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== L’Australie ==

La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.

Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant:

<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>

<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions/fr

2011-06-06T10:36:43Z

Saviles: Created page with "= L’historique = En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de polic..."

= L’historique =

En dépit de l’accumulation de preuves sur le fait que les confessions peuvent être douteuses, ils demeurent l’étalon d’or pour les enquêtes de police. Les confessions s’appellent parfois « la reine des preuves ».
Beaucoup de pays possèdent des règles complexes pour la recevabilité des aveux. Ces règles servent à plusieurs fonctions. Premièrement, elles sont la garantie qu’une « fausse condamnation » ne se produise pas. En second lieu, elles sont une force dissuasive à des interrogatoires abusifs par la police.
Les confessions peuvent être obtenues par des techniques interrogatoires qui violent le libre arbitre de l’accusé ou les droits procéduraux. Un avocat de la défense devrait être prêt à soutenir le fait que ces confessions sont inadmissibles en tant que preuves contre leurs clients.
Les confessions peuvent être inadmissibles pour une variété de raisons mais généralement ceux-ci peuvent être classés en deux catégories. La première catégorie, consiste à demander à la personne qui recueille les données de déterminer si la confession était volontaire dans son fondement. Si celle-ci est volontaire, celle-ci pourra être admise. Si celle-ci est involontaire, celle-ci sera considéré comme inadmissible parce que celle-ci est intrinsèquement douteuse.

Le conseil de la défense pourrait rétorquer qu’une confession est involontaire si elle est le résultat de la torture, de la contrainte, ou de ruses policières.
Chaque interrogation devra être examinée sur ses propres faits.
Le cas le plus évident pour l’inadmissibilité des preuves est lorsqu’une confession est le résultat direct de la torture ou d’autre traitement dégradant ou inhumain. Les cas de contraintes ou de violences se trouvent dans la catégorie intermédiaire où les juridictions internationales diffèrent quant au niveau de coercion ou de violence qui sera nécessaire pour déclarer l’inadmissibilité d’une confession. En fin de compte, dans certaines juridictions le subterfuge des policiers ou la ruse, même si celle-ci n’est pas coercive, pourrait conduire au fait que la confession soit inadmissible.
Dans le droit/ les systèmes de justice, l’avocat de la défense devra rétorquer que la confession devra être exclue. Dans le doit civil/ le système inquisitoire, l’avocat de la défense devra insister sur le fait que la confession soit annulé.

Dans les deux cas, l’échec à obtenir un aveu exclus de l’examen au procès n’empêche pas l’avocat de la défense de rétorquer que la confession est intrinsèquement douteuse et que la personne recueillant les données devra considérer les circonstances autour de l’interrogation lors des délibérations à l’issu du procès.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]
Torture-la contrainte et la coercition- la tromperie – les violations de la procédure.
La seconde catégorie de raisons requiert à la personne recueillant les données d’examiner les aspects de la procédure interrogatoire en vue de déterminer si la police a suivi les procédures qui sont requises par la loi. Selon ce critère, la confession pourrait être douteuse même si celle-ci est donnée volontairement.
== Trois Facteurs de Faux Aveux ==

Le fameux « Goldberg Commission Report » a identifié trois facteurs qui augmenteraient la probabilité de faux aveux. Le premier facteur se réfère à la personnalité du défendeur.
Les accusés sont plus susceptibles de confesser lorsqu’ils ont du mal à différencier la réalité de la fiction, s’ils sont autodestructeurs ou désirent confesser suite à une culpabilité accablant liée à des comportements passées. Le second ensemble de facteurs sont les conditions de détention et les méthodes d’interrogation portant sur l’accusé avant la confession. Les facteurs finaux sont des forces externes qui peuvent faire pression sur les accusés en vue de faire de fausses confessions.

== L’Exigence de Corroboration ==

A cause du risque de faux aveux, il est souvent le cas que le tribunal de première instance requiert des corroborations supplémentaires avant qu’un individu soit déclaré coupable à partir d’un seul aveu.
Parfois appelé le Corpus Delecti (« Le corps du crime »), la norme de preuves exigée pour une corroboration varie de juridiction en juridiction. La demande de corroboration diminue le risque de fausses confessions et requiert à la police de mener des enquêtes au-delà de l'interrogation simple.
Une étude a déterminé que les fausses confessions peuvent se produire sans aucune pratique policière coercitive.
Pour cette raison, certains universitaires ont conclu que toutes confessions devraient accompagnés de plus fortes preuves corroborantes. Finalement, certains praticiens ont conclu que seuls des aveux enregistrés sur bandes vidéo ou audio seraient acceptables.

= Sources internationales =

== Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques ==
'''Article 14, Section 3''' –

*Dans tout procès criminel, un accusé bénéficie des droits suivants :
(a) d'être correctement informé des accusations portées contre lui dans une langue qu'il comprend,
(b) d’avoir le temps de préparer convenablement sa défense et de communiquer avec un avocat qu'il choisit,
(c) d'avoir un procès rapide après l'arrestation,
(d) d'être présent au procès et d'avoir une défense, soit il peut se défendre lui -même ou il peut avoir un avocat pour le défendre ; d’être informé sur son droit d’avoir un avocat ; il devra avoir un avocat qui lui est assigné si sa situation financière ne lui permet d’en avoir un ;
(e) de questionner les témoins des parties en opposition et de placer ses propres témoins devant le juré dans les mêmes circonstances que les témoins des parties opposants ;
(f) d’avoir un interprète pour l’assister si il ne parle pas la langue du tribunal ;
(g) d’avoir la certitude que son privilège contre l'auto-incrimination et le droit contre les confessions forcées soit confirmé.

== Exemples de Normes pour l’Admissibilité de Confessions ==

=== L’Inde ===

Aucune confession faite à un agent de police n’est valable au cours d’un procès. Toutes confessions devront être faites à un magistrat qui possède au moins le grade de magistrat judiciaire. Le magistrat prenant les confessions devra donner à l’accusé le temps nécessaire pour préparer sa défense en dehors de la garde de la police, et faire en sorte que celui-ci ne soit forcé ou intimidé, d’une quelconque manière, avant de recevoir la confession. Sous la confession, le magistrat devra écrire qu’il a informé l’accusé que cette confession pourra être utilisée contre lui et qu’il n’est pas obligé de s’incriminer.
=== Les Etats-Unis ===

[[Voluntariness Test|Test Volontaire]] – Aux Etats Unis, une confession est admissible si un juge considère celle-ci volontaire. Dans le cas de Brown v. Mississipi, 297 278 (1936) le tribunal Suprême des Etats-Unis a, pour la première fois, exclus les confessions acquises et introduit le principe, dans une affaire pénale d’état, que l’admission de confessions violerait les procédures régulières. La règle est basée sur trois principes. En premier lieu, l’exclusion de confessions involontaires tend à dissuader les abus par la police. Deuxièmement, une confession devrait être faite librement par une personne rationnelle. Pour conclure, les confessions obtenues par contrainte sont intrinsèquement douteuses.
L’admissibilité de déclarations incriminantes fait à l’époque où l’accusé possédait son « intellect rationnel » et/ou « son libre arbitre » mais compromise par la maladie mentale ou l’incapacité devra être régi par des règles d’Etat sur les preuves et non sur les décisions du Tribunal Suprême concernant les confessions forcées et les renonciations Miranda. Egalement, les activités de coercition de la police sont une condition nécessaire à la constatation que les aveux ne sont pas «volontaires» selon la clause de la procédure du quatorzième Amendement.
Lorsque l’on détermine si une confession est volontaire, le tribunal devra prendre en compte la « totalité des circonstances ». Dans certaines circonstances, l’inconduite de la police peut être si conséquente que les preuves devraient être exclues sans tenir compte de la conduite de l’accusé.
Cependant, lorsque l’inconduite est moins conséquente, une cour devra considérer si la conduite policière a effectivement induit une confession involontaire.

[[McNabb-Mallory Rule|Règle de McNabb-Mallory]] - une deuxième ligne d'affaires dans les tribunaux fédéraux des Etats-Unis soutient le principe qu’une confession obtenu pendant la garde fédérale est inadmissible si l’accusé n’est pas rapidement présenté au tribunal après l’arrestation.
Si ceci est soutenu dans ces circonstances, il n’est pas nécessaire de prouver que la confession était, en fait, volontaire. Il suffirait de prouver que la police ou les procureurs, ont illégalement détenu le suspect pour un période prolongé, ont extrait des aveux, puis, ont alors tenté d'utiliser la confession contre l’accusé devant le tribunal.
Voir la règle de procédure pénale fédérale n°5 (a) :
<blockquote>Règle n°5 : Comparution initiale (a) En général. (1) Comparution après une arrestation. (A) Toute personne procédant à une arrestation aux Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, ou devant un agent local ou d’Etat, stipulé dans la règle 5 (c) à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement. (B) Une personne procédant à une arrestation en dehors des Etats-Unis devra mener l’accusé devant un magistrat, à moins qu’une loi n’en dispose autrement.</blockquote>

=== Le Kenya ===
Au Kenya, si une confession est faite volontairement, elle pourra être incluse en tant que preuve. La section 25 de la Loi sur la Preuve défini une confession en tant qu’ ‘une série de mots ou une conduite, ou une combinaison de mots et de conduite, à partir desquelles, une conclusion pourra être tiré sur le fait que la personne la faisant a commit un délit », En vue de protéger l’accusé contre toute issu défavorable lié aux confessions forcées, la loi a mis en place des garanties dans le dessein d’assurer que les confessions qui sont faites d’une manière volontaire et en connaissance du droit de garder le silence ne constitue pas un aveu de culpabilité.

=== L’Allemagne ===
En Allemagne, il n’y a pas règle générale d'exclusion obligatoire. Le Code de Procédure Pénale allemand (ou CCP, en anglais) permet aux tribunaux, à l’inverse, de fonctionner sur une base discrétionnaire pour les exclusions. Les courts sont prêtes à exclure les confessions obtenus en violation d'une disposition de la CCP, en raisonnant que les violations de la CCP pourrait discréditer la fiabilité des preuves obtenues. Par ailleurs, en 1992, une Cour Fédérale d’Appel allemande a soutenu que les confessions obtenues par la police, obtenues sans émettre les avertissements nécessaires, ne peuvent être utilisés en tant que preuves. Cependant, le tribunal a déclaré que s’il pouvait être prouvé que le suspect connaissait ses droits, le manque de mises en garde ne conduit pas nécessairement à l'exclusion.
L’exception à la règle allemande d’exclusion obligatoire est contenue dans la section 136a du Code de Procédure Pénale (CCP). La présente section exclut toute confession obtenue par mauvais traitement, fatigue induite, administration de médicaments, les tourments, la tromperie ou l'hypnose. La police est défendue d’utiliser de telles techniques et le tribunal ne prendra pas en compte les confessions faites pendant un interrogatoire utilisant de telles techniques, même si la confession elle-même était volontaire.

=== Le Royaume-Uni ===

La loi anglaise, tout comme la loi américaine, exige la constatation de bénévolat avant la prise en compte d’une confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> Les procureurs ont la charge de trouver les preuves que la confession a été faite d’une manière volontaire. Le juge doit se prononcer sur la délivrance à l'examen préliminaire, en dehors de la présence du jury. Les confessions sont régies par la section 76(2) ou l’Act sur la Police et la Défense Pénale (PACE) en 1984, Section 76(2) stipule:
<blockquote>« Si, dans n’importe laquelle des procédures où le procureur propose d’utiliser la confession de l’accusé en tant que preuve, il est mentionné que la confession a été ou pu être obtenu:</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) Par oppression envers la personne qui l’a faite; ou</blockquote>
<blockquote>(b) En conséquence d’une chose dite ou faite qui pourrait avoir l’effet, en prenant en compte les circonstances qui existés à ce moment précis, de rendre douteuse toute confession qui aurait été faite par lui, en prenant en compte cela:</blockquote>

<blockquote>Le tribunal ne doit pas permettre à la confession d'être présenté en preuve contre l’accusé, sauf dans la mesure où le procureur prouve au tribunal au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que la confession (même si cela peut être vrai) n'a pas été obtenue de cette manière.»<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>
Section 82 (1) de la PACE définie une « confession » comme étant « toute déclaration entièrement ou partiellement défavorable à la personne qui l'a faite. Il faut que celle-ci soit faite à une personne en autorité et qu'elle ait été rédigé à l’écrit ou autrement.<ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

Il y a deux justifications majeures pour exclure les confessions : des méthodes policières oppressives et la fiabilité.
Si le juge admet la confession, le conseil de la défense a encore le droit de faire valoir sur l’oppression ou la fiabilité des preuves pendant le procès. Ce sera alors au juré de décider de l’importance accordé à la confession. En prenant une telle décision, le juré devra agir de manière compatible avec le droit à un procès équitable et le droit contre l'auto-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

== Le Canada ==
Traditionnellement, sous la loi canadienne, la règle d’exclusion pour l’admission d’une confession possède trois composantes :
1) Il devra y avoir crainte de préjudice or l’espérance d’un avantage ;
2) La crainte de préjudice ou l’espérance d’un avantage devra être souligné par une personne en autorité ;
3) La déclaration devra être le résultat à l’incitation.
Tout comme au Royaume-Uni, le procureur est responsable de l’obtention de preuves sur une confession et la décision de volontariat est décidée en dehors de la présence des jurés par un juge. Suivant la jurisprudence canadienne, une déclaration n’est pas considéré comme volontaire si elle n’est pas le produit d’une « personne réfléchie ». Les termes « personne réfléchie » a été mise en place en vue de protéger contre des déclarations auxquelles on ne peut se fier en raison d’un manque de rationalité.

Une déclaration est, par ailleurs, pas considérer comme étant volontaire lorsque l’accusé est ignorant des conséquences de faire un tel aveu (i.e. intoxication ou troubles mentaux) - cette norme se concentre davantage sur les capacités mentales de l'accusé, plus que sur le comportement de la police. Les tribunaux canadiens ont aussi soutenu le fait que des déclarations faites sous oppression ne sont pas volontaires et donc inadmissibles.
Sous la loi canadienne, la loi portant sur les aveux travaille en collaboration avec les lois de la Charte Canadienne des Droits et des Libertés. La Charte fait référence aux confessions en s’appuyant sur le droit contre l’auto-incrimination et le droit au silence. L’obtention des preuves est différente sous la Charte : l’accusé devra prouver qu’il y a eu une infraction des ses droits par rapport à la Charte et il devra alors démontrer que la confession a été obtenu d’une manière qui viole ces droits.

== L’Australie ==
La loi stipule que seules les confessions volontaires ne peuvent être admises au tribunal.
Ce principe est renforcé dans la Loi sur la Preuve 1995, section 84, qui souligne qu’une confession n’est pas admissible à moins que le tribunal est satisfait que la confession n’est été influencé par un comportement violent, agressif, inhumain, ou dégradant ou d’une menace quelconque.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref> En suivant le principe de la loi du pays, les cas présentés ont utilisé plusieurs raisons différentes pour justifier de telles exclusions (par exemple, le droit au silence, la fiabilité, etc.). Cette norme est devenue plus claire avec les cas de R.v Swaffield et Pavic v. R. ; dans ces cas, la Cour Suprême Australienne a mis en place le test de confessions suivant :
<blockquote># Était-t-elle volontaire ? Si oui,</blockquote>
<blockquote># Était-t-elle fiable ? Si oui,</blockquote>
<blockquote># Devrait-elle être exclue dans l'exercice de discrétion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref></blockquote>

Cette norme pour les confessions met l’accent sur la fiabilité plus que dans les tests précédents. Le tribunal inclus aussi l’examen de questions de politique publiques, en plus des questions tournant autour de l'équité du procès et les preuves préjudiciables.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>
== Le Cambodge ==

Sous le Droit Pénale et le Code de Procédure de 1992 (ou UNTAC, en anglais), l’article 24(3) fait référence aux confessions. Il stipule que «les confessions par les personnes accusées ne sont jamais des motifs pour une déclaration de culpabilité à moins d’être corroboré par d’autres preuves. Les aveux obtenus sous la contrainte, quelle qu'en soit la forme, devront être considérée comme nulle et non avenue. L’annulation d'une confession doit être demandée au juge par l'avocat de l'accusé avant l'audience de détermination.»<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref>
De plus, sous le Code de Procédure Pénale du Cambodge, l’article 321 précise que les confessions faites sous des contraintes physiques ou mentales n’ont aucune valeur probante.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Ces deux parties reflètent le principe de l'article 38 de la Constitution cambodgienne, qui proclame que les confessions obtenus par la force physique ou mentale ne seront pas admises en tant que preuves.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>

= Réferences =
<references>

Confessions

2011-06-06T10:21:42Z

Saviles: /* United Kingdom */

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receivint the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to imcriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained</blockquote>

<blockquote>(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or</blockquote>

<blockquote>(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,</blockquote>

<blockquote>The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions

2011-06-06T10:20:03Z

Saviles: /* United Kingdom */

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receivint the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to imcriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

<blockquote>"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained

(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or

(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances
existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,

The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref></blockquote>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Confessions

2011-06-06T10:11:00Z

Saviles:

= Background =

Despite increased evidence that confessions may be [[False Confessions / Admissions|unreliable]], they remain the gold standard of evidence for police investigations. Confessions are sometimes called the "Queen of [[Evidence]]".

Many countries have complex rules for the admissibility of confessions. These rules serve several functions. First, they serve to guarantee that [[Causes of Wrongful Convictions|wrongful conviction]] does not occur. Second, they act as a deterrent to abusive interrogation by the police.

Confessions may be obtained by interrogation techniques that violate the defendant's free will or procedural rights. A defense attorney should be prepared to argue that these confessions are inadmissible as evidence against their client.

Confessions may be inadmissible for a variety of reasons but generally these can be classified into two categories.
The first category of reasons asks the factfinder to determine whether the confession was voluntary in nature. If it is voluntary, then it may be admissible. If it was involuntary, then it should be inadmissible because it is inherently unreliable.

Defense counsel may argue that a confession is involuntary if it is the product of torture, coercion, duress or even police trickery. Each interrogation must be examined on its own facts. The most obvious case to argue for the inadmissibility of evidence is when a confession is the direct result of torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment. Cases of coercion or duress fall in the middle category where international jurisdictions differ as to what level of coercion or duress is necessary to trigger inadmissibility of a confession. Finally, in some jurisdictions police deception or trickery, even if not coercive, may lead the confession to be inadmissible.

In common law/adversarial criminal justice systems the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Exclusionary Rule | exclusion]]. In a civil law / inquisitorial system the defense attorney should argue that the confession should be [[Nullity of Procedure | nullified]].

In either case, failure to get a confession excluded from consideration at trial does not prevent the defense attorney from arguing that the confession is inherently unreliable and that the factfinder should consider the circumstances surrounding the interrogation when deliberating at the conclusion of the trial.

[[File:spectrumofinvoluntarystatements.jpg]]

The second category of reasons asks the fact finder to examine the procedural aspects of the interrogation to determine if police followed procedures that are required under the law. Under this test, the confession may be inadmissible even if it was given voluntarily.

==Three Factors in False Confessions==
The famous Goldberg Commission Report identified three factors that would increase the likelihood of a false confession.<ref>Report of the Commission for Convictions Based Solely on Confessions and For Issues Regarding the Grounds for Retrial (1994)</ref> The first factor examined the defendant's personality. Defendants are more likely to confess when they have difficulty differentiating reality from fiction, they are self-destructive or desire to confess out of overwhelming guilt for past behaviors. The second cluster of factors are the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that bear on the defendant prior to the confession. The final factors are external forces that put may put pressure on defendants to make false confessions.

==The Corroboration Requirement==
Because of the risk of false confession, it is often the case that the trial court will require some additional corroborating evidence before an individual may be convicted on a confession alone. Sometimes called the ''[[Corpus Delecti]]'' ("The Body of the Crime"), the standard of proof required for corroboration varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The demand for corroboration decreases the risk of false confessions and requires police to conduct investigations beyond simple interrogation.

One study determined that false confessions may occur without any coercive police practices. For this reason, some academics have concluded that all confessions should be accompanied stronger corroborative evidence.<ref> Dr. Boaz Sangero, Miranda is Not Enough: A new Justification for Demanding "Strong Corrobration to a Confession", Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 28 No. 6 (May 2007).</ref> Finally, some practitioners have concluded that only video-taped or audio-recorded confessions should be admissible.

= International Sources =

==International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights==

'''Article 14, Section 3''' -

*In any criminal trial, a defendant is entitled to the following rights:
**(a) To be properly informed of the charges against him, in a language that he understands;
**(b) To have enough time to properly prepare his defense and communicate with a lawyer whom he chooses;
**(c) To have a prompt trial after arrest;
**(d) To be present at the trial and to have a defense either as a defender for himself or have a lawyer defend him; to be informed of his right to have a lawyer; and to have a lawyer assigned to him if the defendant's financial situation does not allow him to afford a lawyer;
**(e) To question witnesses of the opposing parties and to place his own witnesses on the trial stand under the same circumstances as that of the opposing parties' witnesses;
**(f) To have an interpreter assist the defendant if he cannot speak the court's language;
**(g) To have his privilege against self-incrimination and right against forced confessions upheld.<ref>http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm</ref>

= Examples of standards for the admissibility of confessions=

==India==
No confession made to a police officer is valid as evidence at a trial. All confessions must be made to a Magistrate not below the rank of Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate taking the confessions must give the accused due time out of the custody of the police, and make an effort to ensure that the accused was not coerced or intimidated in anyway, before receivint the confession. At the bottom of the confession the Magistrate must write out that he has informed the accused that this confession may be used against him and he is not obligated in any way to imcriminate himself.<ref>India Criminal Procedure Code Section 51</ref>

==United States==
'''[[Voluntariness Test]]''' - In the United States, a confession is admissible if a judge deems it to have been made voluntarily. In [[Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)]], the U.S. Supreme Court first excluded confessions procured and introduced in a state criminal case concluding that admission of the confessions would violate due process. The rule is grounded in three principals. First, exclusion of involuntary confessions tends to deter police misconduct. Second, a confession should be freely made by a rational person. Finally, confessions obtained with duress are inherently unreliable.

The admissibility of incriminating statements made at the time a defendant had his "rational intellect" and/or "free will" compromised by mental disease or incapacity is to be governed by state rules of evidence and not by the Supreme Court's decisions regarding coerced confessions and Miranda waivers. Also, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. <ref>[[Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1987)]]</ref>

When determining whether a confession was voluntary, the court should look at the "totality of the circumstances". <ref>Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503 (1963)</ref> In certain circumstances, police misconduct may be so egregious that the confession evidence should be excluded without regard for how that conduct the defendant. However, when conduct is less egregious, a court should consider if the conduct actually induced an involuntary confession.

'''[[McNabb-Mallory Rule]]''' - A second line of cases in the U.S. Federal Courts holds that a confession obtained during Federal custody is inadmissible if the defendant is not promptly produced in court after arrest.<ref> McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957)</ref> If argued under this line of cases, it is unnecessary to prove that the confession was, in fact, involuntary. It is enough to show that the police or prosecution unlawfully detained the suspect for a prolonged period, extracted a confession, and then attempted to use the confession against the defendant in court. See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a):

<blockquote>Rule 5. Initial Appearance
(a) In General.
(1) Appearance Upon an Arrest.
(A) A person making an arrest within the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, or before a state or local judicial officer as Rule 5(c) provides, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(B) A person making an arrest outside the United States must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a statute provides otherwise.
</blockquote>

==Kenya==

In Kenya, if a confession is voluntarily made, it may be admitted into evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act defines a confession as ‘words or conduct, or a combination of words and conduct, from which, whether taken alone or in conjunction with other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has committed an offense." To protect the accused against any adverse outcome due to forced confessions, the law provides safeguards to ensure that confessions are made willfully and with full knowledge that the exercise of the right to remain silent does not amount to an admission of guilt.

==Germany==

In Germany, there is no general mandatory exclusionary rule. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) instead allows for courts to operate on a discretionary basis for exclusions. Courts are willing to exclude confessions obtained in violation of a provision of the CCP, reasoning that violations of the CCP may discredit the reliability of the evidence obtained.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> Furthermore, in 1992, a German Federal Court of Appeals held that confessions obtained by police without issuing required warnings cannot be used as evidence.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref> However, the Court stated that if it could be shown that the suspect knew of his/her rights, the lack of warnings did not necessarily lead to exclusion.<ref> Comparative Criminal Procedure: History, Processes and Case Studies, Raneta Lawson Mack, 2008</ref>

The exception to German rule of no mandatory exclusions is section 136a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). This section excludes any confessions obtained by ill-treatment, induced fatigue, physical interference, administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis.<ref> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stpo/englisch_stpo.html</ref> The police are prohibited from using such methods and the court will exclude any confession made in an interrogation that uses such techniques, even if the confession itself was voluntary.

==United Kingdom==

English law, like American law, requires a finding of voluntariness before admission of a confession.<ref>Gordon Van Kessel, The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence: A Comparison of the English and American Approaches, 38 Hastings L.J. 1 (1986)</ref> The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the confession was voluntarily made. The judge must decide on the issue at the voir dire hearing, which is outside of the presence of the jury. Confessions are governed by section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984. Section 76(2) reads:

"If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained

(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or

(b) in consequences of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances
existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequences thereof,

The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid."<ref> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1871659&ActiveTextDocId=1871659&filesize=9089</ref>

Section 82(1) of PACE defines "confession" as "any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise." <ref>http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&ActiveTextDocId=1871668&filesize=13420</ref>

There are two main rationales to exclude confessions: oppressive police methods and reliability. If the judge admits the confession, defense counsel still has the right to argue oppression or unreliable evidence at trial. It will then be up to the jury to decide the weight that should be given to the confession. In making such a decision, the jury must act compatibly with the right to a fair trial and the right against self-incrimination.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Canada==

Traditionally, under Canadian common law, the exclusionary rule for confession admissibility has three components:

1) There must be fear of prejudice or hope of advantage;

2) The fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been held out by a person in authority; and

3) The statement must be a result of inducement.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

Like in the UK, the prosecution held the burden of proof in establishing voluntariness of a confession and the decision of voluntariness is decided outside of the presence of the jurors by a judge at voir dire.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Under Canadian case law, a statement is not considered voluntary if it is not the product of an "operating mind."<ref>Queen v. Spencer, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc11/2007scc11.html</ref> The phrase "operating mind" is meant to protect against statements that are unreliable due to a lack of rationality. A statement is also not considered voluntary when the accused is unaware of the consequences of making such a confession (i.e. intoxication or mental disorder)- this standard focuses more on the mental ability of the accused, rather than the conduct of the police.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> Canadian courts have also held that statements made under oppression are involuntary and thus inadmissible.

Under modern Canadian law, the common law rule of confessions works in conjunction with the rules under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref> The Charter relates to confessions in its privilege against self-incrimination and its right to silence. The burden of proof is different under the Charter: the accused must prove that there has been an infringement of his/her Charter rights and then must demonstrate that the confession was obtained in a manner that violated those rights.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Australia==

The common law rule stipulates that only voluntary confessions can be admitted to the court. This principle is reinforced in the Evidence Act of 1995, section 84, which reads that a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhumane or degrading conduct or a threat of any kind.<ref>http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s84.html</ref>. In following the common law principle, the cases used several different rationales to justify such exclusions (i.e. right to silence, reliability, etc.). The standard became clearer with the cases of R. v. Swaffield and Pavic v. R.; in those cases, the Australian High Court outlined the following confessions test:

1) Was it voluntary? If so,

2) If is reliable? If so,

3) Should be it be excluded in the exercise of discretion?<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf. See also R. v. Swaffield, http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1998/1.html?query=title(R%20%20and%20%20Swaffield)</ref>

This confessions standard emphasizes reliability more than previous tests. The court also includes examination of public policy issues, in addition to issues revolving around trial fairness and unduly prejudicial evidence.<ref>http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/ES%20PAPER%20CONFESSIONS%20REVISED.pdf</ref>

==Cambodia==

Under the UNTAC Criminal Law and Procedure Code of 1992, article 24(3) addresses confessions. It reads that "[c]onfessions by accused persons are never grounds for conviction unless corroborated by other evidence. A confession obtained under duress, of whatever form, shall be considered null and void. Nullification of a confession must be requested from the judge by counsel for the accused prior to the sentencing hearing."<ref>http://www.bigpond.com.kh/Council_of_Jurists/Judicial/jud005g.htm</ref> Furthermore, under the 2007 Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, article 321 states that declarations given under physical or mental duress have no evidentiary value.<ref>David McKeever, Evidence Obtained Through Torture Before the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, 8 J. Int'l Crim. Just. 615 (2010)</ref> Both of these sections reflect the principle in article 38 of the Cambodian Constitution, which proclaims that confessions obtained through physical or mental force shall not be admitted as evidence.<ref>http://www.khmerrough.com/pdf/CriticalThinking-Eng/Part5-CriticalThinking.pdf</ref>.

See [[Right to Silence]], [[Rights of the Accused]]

=Notes=
<references/>
{{Languages|Confessions}}

Theory of the Case

2011-06-03T13:48:47Z

Saviles:

Practice Guides - Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment

2011-06-03T13:29:36Z

Saviles: Created page with "'''Adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 2011''' ''Effective: Ma..."

'''Adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 2011'''

''Effective: May 1, 2011''<ref>Prepared by: International Bridges to Justice – China Staff: Judith Mandel, Chen Dong, Beatriz Garcia, Chen Xinyu, William Mattimore</ref>

This practice note describes new laws and changes to existing laws enacted through the 8th Amendment, creates some practice points for defense counsel, and applies the new amendments to hypothetical situations to assist the practitioner.

=OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE 8TH AMENDMENT=

''Effective May 1, 2011''

# Reduction in the number of crimes from 68 to 55 that are eligible for the death penalty
# Introduction of exclusion of death penalty at 75 years of age (unless the accused caused the death of another person by extremely cruel means), and availability of mitigated punishment<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶2 CL</ref>
# Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>
# Elimination of a public record of conviction, with penalty of less than five years, for youth who commit a crime when under the age of 18<ref>Art.100 CL</ref>
# Amendments to criminal punishment, including provision for community correction and prohibitions regarding engaging in certain activities, going to places or contacting people, parole regulations, an increase of minimum sentence requirements, and regulations affecting recidivists<ref>Art. 38 ¶2, ¶3 CL</ref>
# Clarification of crimes and gradation of criminal offenses
# Added Crimes.
## Drunk driving<ref>Art. 133A CL</ref>
## Bribery of foreign official or international public organizations<ref>Art. 164 ¶.2 CL</ref>
## Falsely writing out invoices<ref>Art. 205A CL</ref>
## Holding forged invoices<ref>Art. 210A CL</ref>
## Organizing the trading in human organs<ref>Art. 234A CL</ref>
## Assistance in forcing others to do labor<ref>Art. 244¶.2 CL</ref>
## Malicious arrears of wages<ref>Art. 276A CL</ref>
## Food safety dereliction of duty<ref>Art. 408A CL</ref>

----

= DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES =

== Elimination of the death penalty for 13 offenses: ==

*Smuggling of artifacts; smuggling of precious metals; smuggling of rare animals or rare animal products; crime of smuggling ordinary cargos and articles, providing armed escort for smuggling;<ref>Art. 151, Art. 153 ¶1, Art. 157 CL</ref>
*Notes fraud; financial instrument fraud; credit fraud; falsely writing out value added tax invoices or any other invoices for obtaining fraudulent tax refunds; forging VAT invoices or selling fake VAT invoices;<ref>Art. 194, Art. 195, Art. 205,Art. 206 CL</ref>
*Excavating and robbing sites of ancient culture or ancient tombs; crime of excavating ancient human fossils or ancient vertebrate fossils;<ref>Art. 328, Art. 328 ¶.2 CL</ref>
*Crime of teaching another person how to commit a crime;<ref>Art. 295 CL</ref>
*Theft.<ref>Art. 264 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

The elimination of the death penalty for the above listed crimes reflects the reality of the judgments for these crimes. The changes remove the penalty of death for those crimes for which death has not been given, or upheld, in recent years. Defense lawyers should be aware of existing trends in sentencing judgments. For example, while the death penalty remains a possible punishment for serious infliction of injury<ref>Art. 234 CL</ref> it is not often requested unless the injury is inflicted by especially cruel means and the degree of resulting disability to the victim is especially extreme, and more likely, only if death is caused.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client has been charged with robbery.<ref>Art.263 CL</ref> He stole a purse from a woman on the street. As he ran away the woman saw that he had a gun in his pocket.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of robbery under Art.263 ¶7 CL (“robbing with a gun”) and subject to the imposition of death, or is he guilty of Art.264CL (theft with a lethal weapon), and not subject to the imposition of death.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Burglary,<ref>Art.26 CL</ref> or stealing by pickpockets with a lethal weapon is now defined as theft. The death penalty has been eliminated for the crime of theft. The client is guilty of the crime of stealing with a lethal weapon but not of robbery since the gun was not used to bring about the theft. He is not subject to the death penalty.</blockquote>

----

== Punishment limitations for persons 75 years or older ==

Persons 75 years or older are not subject to the death penalty and are eligible for mitigated punishment.<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶ 2, Art. 72 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel ====

* Remember to verify the age of any defendant who is senior.
* Attention: a lighter punishment may be given for an intentional crime but shall be given for a negligent one.
* Attention: the senior over 75 can be subjected to the death penalty only on condition that the crime is especially cruel.
* Obtaining probation for a defendant who is 75 years of age (probation at this age is mandatory if the conditions in the article are met)<ref>Art. 72 CL</ref>
* Defense counsel should prepare materials that address:
** how the defendant’s family will monitor and take care of him/her;
** the health condition of the defendant;
** showing why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if probation is granted.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario 1:''' Your client has been charged with intentional murder. At the time of commission of the offense your client was 74 years old, but turned 75 while in detention.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' If found guilty, is your client eligible for the death penalty?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 49 CL has been modified so that defendants excluded from the death penalty include those who at the time of the commission of the crime had not yet attained the age of 75, so long as they have reached the age by the trial stage. It is important to note that this provision does not exclude ALL defendants 75 years or older, since it gives judges the discretion to assign the death penalty in cases of especial cruelty.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Scenario 2:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with intentionally causing serious bodily injury.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Maybe. Art. 17 ¶2 of the amended CL states that where the crime is intentional, the defendant who is 75 years or older may be eligible for mitigated punishment. This may indicate that the existence of grave/cruel circumstances in the way the crime was committed may result in the imposition of the harsher penalty, notwithstanding the age of the defendant. This interpretation is consistent with the amendment discussed above to Art. 49 CL which, although generally exempting senior citizens from the imposition of the death penalty, nevertheless leaves judges with the discretion to depart from the principle where especially cruel circumstances are present.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Scenario 3:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with negligently causing serious bodily injury.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Scenario 4:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been convicted of an offense with a fixed-term imprisonment of 3 years or less.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is he eligible for suspended sentence?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes. Senior citizens aged 75 years and above are eligible for suspended sentence under modifications to Art. 72 CL provided they meet the stipulated criteria.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Scenario 5:''' Your client is 68 years of age and has been convicted of inflicting intentional injury (Art. 234 CL) causing severe injury.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigation of punishment?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' No. The 8th Amendment specifically addresses clients 75 years of age. However, there may be other criteria for mitigation.</blockquote>

----

== Mitigation of Punishment for Defendants who Confess Truthfully ==

Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented.<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>

The addition of new ¶ 3 to Art. 67 CL provides the opportunity for mitigation of sentence even though a defendant did not initially voluntarily surrender.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Whenever a defendant accepts guilt, mitigation of punishment should be argued.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client was detained by the police for the commission of the crime of robbery of private property under Art.263 CL. After your investigation and preparation with the client, you and he have decided that the best course for him is to confess to his guilt and tell the police about plans of others he knows to commit a robbery of apartment residences in a nearby neighborhood.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is your client eligible for mitigation of sentence?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes. Under Art.67 new ¶ 3 CL , he is eligible.</blockquote>

----

== Changes Related to Juveniles ==

Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records, directs that a sentence of probation be given under certain circumstances, and declares that the conviction is not a criminal record for purposes of recidivism

* Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records when offense committed as a juvenile and the sentence was a term of imprisonment of not more than five years<ref>Art. 100 CL</ref>
* In the above circumstance a juvenile conviction need not be disclosed when joining the army or getting a job.
* The conviction cannot be counted toward recidivism<ref>Art. 65 ¶ 1CL</ref>
* If the sentence is a fixed term of imprisonment of not more than three years, and the case fits the four conditions laid out in Art.72 CL, a juvenile shall be given probation. Probation shall be given to juveniles in this circumstance if the juvenile is repentant, unlikely to repeat his offense, and his release will not adversely impact the community.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials to show that the juvenile has a positive attitude toward rejoining the community and that members of his community support his return.

----
== Expansion of Possible Conditions Placed on Sentences of Public Surveillance: ==

The sentence of public surveillance has been changed under the amended law. In addition to the supervisory scheme detailed in Art. 39 CL, the court may also order community correction and orders restraining defendants from meeting certain people, entering certain places, and/or engaging in certain activities.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of theft by pick pocketing of a large number of wallets while in an internet café. He was sentenced to public surveillance for 6 months.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question 1:''' Under the new rules can your client be restricted from entering certain places or areas?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes. The applicability of the new restrictions is subject to the circumstances of the crime. In this instance, the crime was carried out in the Internet cafe, and it could be possible for a court to consider it necessary to include in the sentence, a restriction to enter Internet cafes.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question 2:''' Is the imposition of the new restrictions mandatory under the amended law?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' As indicated by the word may, the imposition of these measures are up to the discretion of the court on consideration of the circumstances of the case. Therefore defense lawyers should identify and mitigate the circumstances that would trigger the court to impose these additional measures. For example, a defender might respond to a request for a broad order restricting his client from going to a geographical area where a crime occurred by obtaining documents demonstrating that the defendant’s presence in the area is needed for him to perform valuable work.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question 3:''' Under the new rules is the PSB solely responsible for executing the sentence?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 38 ¶2 CL has been modified so that community correction shall apply where a defendant is sentenced to public surveillance; former Art. 38 ¶2 CL stated that a public security organ should execute the surveillance, but this has been deleted. What this may mean in practice is that clients with suspended sentences will now have to report to community centers and obtain compulsory corrective education, as opposed to report to the PSB on a regular basis. The role of the PSB is changed. Only if the orders of the court are disobeyed will public security punishment be employed according to Art. 38¶4 CL.</blockquote>

----
== Amendment to Criminal Punishments ==

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Combined Crimes'''

Maximum term of imprisonment for combined punishment may not exceed 25 years if total of combined punishments is 35 years or more, and it may not exceed 20 years if total of combined punishments is less than 35 years (Art. 69 CL).

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Commuted Sentence'''

Death penalty commutation for major meritorious service increased to 25 years from 15-20 years. (Art .50 CL)

=== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ===

The increase of maximum sentences in both of the instances set forth above is consistent with the 8th Amendment’s over-all scheme: to increase punishment for serious crimes that endanger the public safety, while fostering leniency for minor crimes.

==== Practice Point for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should be aware of Art. 12 CL which sets out the “rule of lenity” for crimes committed under laws that have been superseded by laws that create harsher punishments.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client is charged with shielding drug smugglers,<ref>Art. 349 CL</ref> conspiring to cultivate marijuana and opium,<ref>Art. 351 CL</ref> and drug trafficking.<ref>Art. 347 CL</ref> The combined punishment for his crimes is more than 35 years. His crimes are charged to have occurred in December, 2010 but he is arrested and brought to trial on June 11, 2011.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is this client’s maximum sentence 25 years or does it remain 20 years?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' According to Art. 12 CL, in this situation the lighter punishment must apply.</blockquote>

----

== Clarification and Gradation of Criminal Offenses ==

The amendments in these articles reflect rising concerns regarding production and sale of consumption goods, in particular, foodstuffs and drugs. On plain reading they appear to be aimed at lowering the threshold to absorb more instances of criminal behavior into the definition of the offense. This is done through eliminating ambiguities in the formulation of crime, and simultaneously, through creating a gradation of the offenses to include aggravating circumstances that would merit heavier punishment. Legislators have also tightened the punishment of these offenses by removing the discretion to impose a fine, making it instead a compulsory punishment at each grade of the offense.

==== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ====

The 8th Amendment has changed the “elements” of crimes regarding the production and sale of consumption goods, particularly food and drugs.

'''Art. 141(1) CL:''' removes the need to prove the harmful risk posed by the drugs. The amendment appears to introduce strict liability for engaging in production and/or sale of fake drugs, regardless of the potentially noxious effect on consumers. The prosecution does not need to prove the harmful effect of the drugs to obtain a conviction, but rather the focus of the court would be on the fake quality of the drugs (that they were produced without a license, for example), and where it concerns sale, likely on the mental state of the person charged with the offense (their knowledge). There are three levels of offense:
# Manufactures or sells
# Manufactures of sells where serious harm to human health is caused or there are other grave circumstances
# Manufactures or sells where death is caused to another person or there are other especially serious consequences

'''Art. 143 CL:''' replaced hygiene standards for safety standards and added a condition of sufficiency to cause serious food poisoning or disease, that must be satisfied in order to prove the crime. It is unclear whether the condition attaches to the food product or to the means, methods and conditions of production/sale of the product. If the former, the prosecution would need to show that production/sale conditions are below required safety standards and that the food product is sufficiently compromised so as to cause severe food poisoning or illness if consumed. Under the latter approach , proof of non-compliance with safety standards would be sufficient proof of guilt, the actual potential risk - or lack thereof - posed by the food being irrelevant to a determination of guilt or innocence.

'''Art. 144 CL:''' no amendments other than replacing “such foods” with “food mixed with toxic or harmful non-food materials.”

'''Gradation of Crimes:''' A common element of all provisions of the CL is the gradation of offenses consisting generally of three grades of criminal behavior, the term of imprisonment being determined by the gravity of the crime. The new amendments follow this pattern.

==== Practice points for Defense Counsel: ====

The issue for defense lawyers is to identify, and to the extent possible, separate these categories. For example,

''Serious harm to human health or other grave circumstances''
*This is the second seriousness level of the Art. 141(1) CL, where ascertainable harm to human health has been caused. What will be considered serious harm to human health?

''Death is caused to another or there are other especially serious circumstances''
*This is the third seriousness level of the crime.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client produced fake medicine and sold it to a couple of pharmacies. There is no evidence that anyone bought or consumed the medicine.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Can your client be found guilty, even if there is no evidence that the fake medicine was consumed by anyone?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Your client is strictly liable for producing fake medicine, and may be convicted to a fixed term of imprisonment of maximum 3 years, in addition to a fine. There is no proof that anyone ever bought or consumed the fake medicine, and therefore no evidence of harm to human health arising out of the crime. However, under the terms of “other grave circumstances” your client may still receive a harsher sentence of between 3-10 years. There is no indication of what may fall under “other grave circumstances,” but presumably it could be related to the toxicity levels in the fake medicine. If there is no evidence to support that the fake medicine was dangerous, you should argue that there is no evidence of grave circumstances.</blockquote>

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* The defense should argue that clear proof of a likelihood of actual harm must be identified for the court by the prosecution, in order for the court to find “other grave circumstances” in the case.

'''Art. 81 CL'''- Conditions for Obtaining Parole

Main Changes:

* Increased the minimum term before parole eligibility to 13 years for those convicted to life imprisonment
* Eliminated parole for recidivists;
* Added arson and organized violent crime to the list of offenses for which there is no parole eligibility;
* Specified that those convicted of intentional homicide may not be paroled, thereby allowing parole for those convicted of negligent homicide;
* Allows the court to consider impact of inmate’s release upon the community where he/she will live.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of negligent homicide in 2007 and was sentenced to seven years in prison under Art. 233 CL. In prison he has shown good behavior and taken advantage of all educational programs that were available. He wants to apply for parole to return home.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question 1:''' Is he eligible for parole?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes, under the CL as now amended. He has served more than half of his sentence and this crime is now an eligible crime for parole.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question 2:''' Will the court consider the impact of your client’s release upon the community where he will live?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedies:''' Yes.</blockquote>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials that show how the defendant’s family will monitor him; why he is now prepared to accept parole supervision, and why he will be successful. The materials should clearly address why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if parole is granted.

----
== Selected Examples of New Crimes: ==

Abandonment of Official Duties by State Officials and Absconding<ref>Art. 109 CL</ref>

* The elements of the crime have been clarified. Proof that the act endangered state security is removed.

Drunk Driving and Car Racing<ref>Art. 133(a) CL</ref>

* Two new offenses are established
* No strict liability: prosecution must prove the existence of grave circumstances to obtain conviction.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

<blockquote>'''Scenario:''' Your client drank baijiu at a karaoke club over several hours. He then left in his car. Police observed him get in his car and pulled him over. Breath testing revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of 70mg. per 100ml. of blood.</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of the new crime of drunk driving?</blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Remedy:''' No, while “drunk” is not defined in the new law, it is defined in National Standard GB 19522.<ref>National Standard GB 19522 (2004), Vehicle Driver: Blood/Breath Alcohol Test</ref> To be considered drunk the test must show an alcohol level 80mg. per 100 ml. of blood. This client, while subject to administrative punishment, is not guilty of the new crime of “drunk driving.”</blockquote>

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* Since drunk driving is now criminalized, it is important to understand how breath and blood testing are done and what kinds of errors may occur.
* The definition of “drunk” should be strictly adhered to in the evidence.

----
''We hope this practice note helps you understand and apply the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the PRC. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at jmandel@ibj.org.''

==References==

<references/>

----
See [[China]],[[media:eighthamendment.pdf|Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment PDF]]
__NOTOC__

Theory of the Case

2011-06-03T13:15:50Z

Saviles:

== Background ==
To defend a client effectively, the lawyer must understand how to tell a story to the court. This story can be summarized as the defense theory of the case. The more convincing and touching the story is, the more persuasive the argument becomes to the factfinder, who ultimately decides the facts of the case. Every well-knit story needs a plot, and for a defense argument, the plot provides the best tool for explaining the facts of your theory of the case.

The basic requirement in preparing a defense is to develop a theory of the case. Of course it is necessary to research the law and to identify the elements of each charge. It is also important to go over the prosecution's evidence carefully to see if there is evidence of each element. But a well thought out theory of the case enables the defender to ask the right questions and look for the right evidence to prepare for trial.

A theory of the case consists of the following parts:
#'''The relevant law''' - The law or jury instructions that apply to the issues which arise in your case.
#'''The facts of the [[crimes | crime]] that are beyond dispute''' - Those facts which (no matter what you do or say) will be believed by the factfinder as true. These include those facts which you will be able to present (through affidavit, direct examination or cross-examination) which the factfinder would likely accept as true.
#'''Common sense''' - Ordinary people must believe based on their life experiences that the defense theory of the case is what happened.
#'''Emotional factors''' - Emotions often motivate more decisions by people than logic. Therefore, a theory of the case should generate feelings in the factfinder as to what, how, and why the case occurred.

Here is how three public defenders have defined the theory of the case:

<blockquote> "That combination of facts and law which in a common sense and emotional way leads the judge to conclude a fellow citizen is wrongfully accused" - Tony Natale, Federal Defender </blockquote>
<blockquote>"The central theory that organizes all facts, reasons, arguments and furnishes the basic position from which one determines every action in the [[trial]]" - Mario Conte</blockquote>
<blockquote>"A paragraph of one to three sentences which summarizes the facts, emotions and legal basis for the citizen accused's acquittal or conviction on lesser charge while telling the defenses story of innocence or reduced culpability" - Vince Aprile</blockquote>

A theory of the case should be distinguished from a theory of the defense. A theory of the defense conveys an attitude that there are two sides or visions. A theory of the case is a positive, affirmative statement of what actually occurred and what the law directs should happen to an individual who has been accused in a situation.

The theory must be credible and believable. It must be consistent with bad facts and explain away bad facts at the same time. It should be interesting and entertaining. Finally, the theory should be client-centered and driven by the requirements of the factfinder.

A theory of the case is not mistaken identification, self-defense, reasonable doubt, inadequate police investigation or coercion and duress.

==Theme of the Case==
A theory of the case may also include a theme of the case. A theme of the case is a word, phrase, or simple sentence that captures the controlling or dominant emotion and/or reality of the theory of the case. The case theme must be brief and easily remembered by the jurors. Examples of a theme of the case include:
* Puppet of Fear
* Unwilling Participant
* Forced to Rob
* Unwilling Accomplice
* Victim of Fear
* Two Victims
* Coerced to Crime
* Frightened, Forced, and Falsely Accused
* Frightened, Forced, and Framed

A theme functions to strengthen the defenant's case in several ways. First, the theme repeatedly reinfoces your theory of the case in the factfinder's mind. Second, the theme provides an easy catch-word or catch-phrase for the factinder to use when determining guilt or innocent. The theme enables the defense lawyer to re-orient the factfinder to the theory of the case quickly and easily. A theme also forces the prosecution to argue against your theory rather than simply arguing their own case. Finally, the theme brings a vivid image and emotion to the factfinder everytime it is used. These themes can be used in every facet of the case: motions, negotiations, opening statements, direct examinations, objections, closing argumetns, instructions, post-verdict motions, sentencing, and dealing with the media.

==Benefits of the Theory of the Case==
A theory of the case benefits and drives all other aspects of the defense. For instance, a theory of the case:
* Directs pre-trial motion practices
* Focuses and prioritizes [[Voir Dire | voir dire]] questions
* Functions as a mini opening statement
* Measures the prejudice of prosecutorial actions
* Creates parameters for the scope of cross-examination
* Places all witnesse in the defense context
* Reveals the appropriate attitude for cross-examining each witness
* Organizes the presentation of the defense case
* Serves as a checklist for eliciting essential information from defense witnesses
* Dictates the essential defense instructions and reveals inappropriate instructions
* Identifies and prioritizes issues for opening statements and closing arguments

== Creating a Theory of the Case ==
===Stage One - Acquisition===
Learn as much as possible about the individual facts of the case. Gather all information, even if it appears to be harmful or irrelevant to the defense. Clearly harmful information is as important or more important than any other information.

===Stage Two - Brainstorming===
Objectively analyze the facts and the evidence in the case. Identify the facts that are likely to reach the listener. Try to determine how the government will make its case. What evidence does the government have? How will the government address the neutral facts? By anticipating the government's case you can prepare for it.

Often, there are certain facts in a case that a listener will believe to be true no matter what you do or say. You should identify these facts and make the facts part of your theory. Be creative, think of all the possible case theories you could use based on the evidence you have gathered. Start by examining all of the possible defenses for the offense your client is charged with.

When you brainstorm consider if a witness can identify your client at the scene. Can the government prove the client was at the scene? Is there any evidence that your client was framed? Did the crime actually occur? Are your client's actions justified or excusable? For example, was the client acting in self-defense or under duress? Is your client guilty of a lesser charge? Think through all of the possibilities before choosing a defense.

After brainstorming all the possible theories, subject each theory to two tests. First, the facts beyond change test. Is the theory consistent with of the facts beyond change? If there are any facts inconsistent with you theory you may want to choose a different theory. The listener will not accept a theory that is inconsistent with a fact that the listener believer to be true. Second, the plausibility test. Is the theory plausible? Is the theory internally consistent? Does the theory sound like the truth? If more than one theory passes both tests, choose the theory that best applies to the listener's world view. For example, if the listener has a police background, a theory that a police officer made a mistake is a better choice than a theory suggesting that the police office is lying.

===Stage Three - Execution===
Select the theory that gives your client the best chance to achieve the client's desired result. Only choose one theory. Having more than one theory will undermine your credibility. We suggest that you pick a theory that presents an affirmative picture of your client's innocence.

Your final theory of the case should have persuasive facts, strong emotions, a legal basis for the listener to find your client innocent, vivid imagery, and concrete language.

Your final theory of the case should be client-centered, listener driven, and a compelling and believable story.

View the listener as a member of an adult education class. You are the teacher and you must teach the listener your theory. You can teach the listener through demonstrative or physical evidence, visual displays, re-enactments, and analogies.

Plan your case in reverse. Start at the end. If you are appearing before a jury, draft jury instructions tailored to your theory. In drafting the instructions, consider the law underlying your theory.

Draft your closing argument based on the evidence that led you to select the theory. Explain and support your theory while arguing against the government's theory.

During cross examination, your goal should not be to discover new facts. Ask questions about facts that you know will support your theory. If a line of questions does not advance your theory, do not use it.

Use the opening statement to introduce your theory to the listener.

===Factual Component===

When finalizing your theory of the case remember to include the most important facts, good, bad, and indifferent.

When developing a theory of the case to explain a conflict or criminal act, the defender should ask:

* What happened?
* What did they do, feel, want?
* What is the relationship between the parties involved?
* What are the physical particularities?
* What are the legal elements of the case?

===Legal Component===

Include the legal strategies and phrases you will use during the trial. Include the elements of the crime charged. For each element, list the evidence in support and the evidence rebutting the element. If there is little or no evidence in the case file to rebut an element, then part of the defense investigation is to look for such evidence.

===Emotional Component===

Include the emotions of the scene. Put the listener in the defendant's position.

===Vocabulary of the Case===

Use the vocabulary of the case in your theory. This, internal vocabulary, comes from the documents of the case such as police reports, witness statements, official records, and personal documents. The vocabulary of the case also comes from the testimony of the witnesses.
External vocabularies are the words you are able to get witnesses to use. Make the witness use vivid synonyms. External vocabulary must come from the witness and should not be over-dramatized. External vocabulary should be consistent and credible with the normal vocabulary of the witness.

== Storytelling==
Storytelling allows the legal aid lawyer to set the stage, introduce the characters, create an atmosophere, and organize ideas into a carefully crafted narrative format, thereby impacting the way each judge perceives a given case. Without such a framework, judges will understand the evidence and testimony in accordance with the prosecutor's argument. Once the defense lawyer successfully executes a framework, he can use the client's experiences to influence the judge's imagination, leading most judges to understand the evidence in the context of the client's past experiences. More importantly, storytelling will cause judges to uyse both their hearts and minds in considering the defense's argument.

The following suggestions may help the lawyer decide what language to use or avoid in stating a theory of the case on behalf of a client:
*The language of storytelling and the language the lawyer normally uses are very different. The lawyer should tell the story as if he is casually speaking with friends.
*Speak accurately. What you actually saw should match what you intend to say.
*Translate legal terms or abstract concepts into clear, common, and simple language.
*Use effective language.
**Avoid words or phrases with reserved meaning, for example "I think," "I believe," or "I will try to prove."
**Use active tense.
**Avoid unconscious hesitation or useless verb pauses.
**Use language that has the appropriate emotional and appealing elements.
**Use vivid language.
**Use concrete rather than abstract language.
**Use detailed and accurate rather than general or vague language.
*There should be sentence variety, but short sentences are best.
*Do not refer to notes while speaking.

==Conclusion==
Whether defense counsel chooses to develop a specific defense or simply to rely on the prosecutor's failure to carry the burden of proof he must begin early on to develop a theory of the case. Some defenses are directed at a failure of proof (e.g., alibi or consent) whereas others are more general and are applicable even if all the elements of the crime are proved (e.g., self-defense, insanity, entrapment). The approach you take will determine many subsequent actions. In addition, in some states the defense must give notice to the prosecutor that a specific defense is being asserted. This is often true, for example, of the alibi defense.

Anyone handling a defense understands that it is necessary to look at the most obvious aspects. But it is also important to consider the facts beyond the obvious. It is the job of the defense to point out the whole picture, beyond the first glance, the most obvious. Developing the theory of the case points the directions for investigation, and the investigation is likely to uncover information that further develops the theory of the case.

----
See [[Trial]], [[Cross-Examination]], [[Opening Statements]], [[Closing Statements]] and [[Direct Examination]]

----
{{Languages|Theory of the Case}}

Practice Note - Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

2011-06-03T12:11:34Z

Saviles: /* References */

'''Adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 2011'''

''Effective: May 1, 2011''<ref>Prepared by: International Bridges to Justice – China Staff: Judith Mandel, Chen Dong, Beatriz Garcia, Chen Xinyu, William Mattimore</ref>

This practice note describes new laws and changes to existing laws enacted through the 8th Amendment, creates some practice points for defense counsel, and applies the new amendments to hypothetical situations to assist the practitioner.

=OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE 8TH AMENDMENT=

''Effective May 1, 2011''

# Reduction in the number of crimes from 68 to 55 that are eligible for the death penalty
# Introduction of exclusion of death penalty at 75 years of age (unless the accused caused the death of another person by extremely cruel means), and availability of mitigated punishment<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶2 CL</ref>
# Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>
# Elimination of a public record of conviction, with penalty of less than five years, for youth who commit a crime when under the age of 18<ref>Art.100 CL</ref>
# Amendments to criminal punishment, including provision for community correction and prohibitions regarding engaging in certain activities, going to places or contacting people, parole regulations, an increase of minimum sentence requirements, and regulations affecting recidivists<ref>Art. 38 ¶2, ¶3 CL</ref>
# Clarification of crimes and gradation of criminal offenses
# Added Crimes.
## Drunk driving<ref>Art. 133A CL</ref>
## Bribery of foreign official or international public organizations<ref>Art. 164 ¶.2 CL</ref>
## Falsely writing out invoices<ref>Art. 205A CL</ref>
## Holding forged invoices<ref>Art. 210A CL</ref>
## Organizing the trading in human organs<ref>Art. 234A CL</ref>
## Assistance in forcing others to do labor<ref>Art. 244¶.2 CL</ref>
## Malicious arrears of wages<ref>Art. 276A CL</ref>
## Food safety dereliction of duty<ref>Art. 408A CL</ref>indented line/

----
= DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES =

== Elimination of the death penalty for 13 offenses: ==

*Smuggling of artifacts; smuggling of precious metals; smuggling of rare animals or rare animal products; crime of smuggling ordinary cargos and articles, providing armed escort for smuggling;<ref>Art. 151, Art. 153 ¶1, Art. 157 CL</ref>
*Notes fraud; financial instrument fraud; credit fraud; falsely writing out value added tax invoices or any other invoices for obtaining fraudulent tax refunds; forging VAT invoices or selling fake VAT invoices;<ref>Art. 194, Art. 195, Art. 205,Art. 206 CL</ref>
*Excavating and robbing sites of ancient culture or ancient tombs; crime of excavating ancient human fossils or ancient vertebrate fossils;<ref>Art. 328, Art. 328 ¶.2 CL</ref>
*Crime of teaching another person how to commit a crime;<ref>Art. 295 CL</ref>
*Theft.<ref>Art. 264 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

The elimination of the death penalty for the above listed crimes reflects the reality of the judgments for these crimes. The changes remove the penalty of death for those crimes for which death has not been given, or upheld, in recent years. Defense lawyers should be aware of existing trends in sentencing judgments. For example, while the death penalty remains a possible punishment for serious infliction of injury<ref>Art. 234 CL</ref> it is not often requested unless the injury is inflicted by especially cruel means and the degree of resulting disability to the victim is especially extreme, and more likely, only if death is caused.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client has been charged with robbery.<ref>Art.263 CL</ref> He stole a purse from a woman on the street. As he ran away the woman saw that he had a gun in his pocket.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of robbery under Art.263 ¶7 CL (“robbing with a gun”) and subject to the imposition of death, or is he guilty of Art.264CL (theft with a lethal weapon), and not subject to the imposition of death.

'''Remedies:''' Burglary,<ref>Art.26 CL</ref> or stealing by pickpockets with a lethal weapon is now defined as theft. The death penalty has been eliminated for the crime of theft.
The client is guilty of the crime of stealing with a lethal weapon but not of robbery since the gun was not used to bring about the theft. He is not subject to the death penalty.

----

== Punishment limitations for persons 75 years or older ==

Persons 75 years or older are not subject to the death penalty and are eligible for mitigated punishment.<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶ 2, Art. 72 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel ====

* Remember to verify the age of any defendant who is senior.
* Attention: a lighter punishment may be given for an intentional crime but shall be given for a negligent one.
* Attention: the senior over 75 can be subjected to the death penalty only on condition that the crime is especially cruel.
* Obtaining probation for a defendant who is 75 years of age (probation at this age is mandatory if the conditions in the article are met)<ref>Art. 72 CL</ref>
* Defense counsel should prepare materials that address:
** how the defendant’s family will monitor and take care of him/her;
** the health condition of the defendant;
** showing why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if probation is granted.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario 1:''' Your client has been charged with intentional murder. At the time of commission of the offense your client was 74 years old, but turned 75 while in detention.

'''Question:''' If found guilty, is your client eligible for the death penalty?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 49 CL has been modified so that defendants excluded from the death penalty include those who at the time of the commission of the crime had not yet attained the age of 75, so long as they have reached the age by the trial stage. It is important to note that this provision does not exclude ALL defendants 75 years or older, since it gives judges the discretion to assign the death penalty in cases of especial cruelty.

'''Scenario 2:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with intentionally causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Maybe. Art. 17 ¶2 of the amended CL states that where the crime is intentional, the defendant who is 75 years or older may be eligible for mitigated punishment. This may indicate that the existence of grave/cruel circumstances in the way the crime was committed may result in the imposition of the harsher penalty, notwithstanding the age of the defendant. This interpretation is consistent with the amendment discussed above to Art. 49 CL which, although generally exempting senior citizens from the imposition of the death penalty, nevertheless leaves judges with the discretion to depart from the principle where especially cruel circumstances are present.

'''Scenario 3:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with negligently causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

'''Scenario 4:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been convicted of an offense with a fixed-term imprisonment of 3 years or less.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for suspended sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Senior citizens aged 75 years and above are eligible for suspended sentence under modifications to Art. 72 CL provided they meet the stipulated criteria.

'''Scenario 5:''' Your client is 68 years of age and has been convicted of inflicting intentional injury (Art. 234 CL) causing severe injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigation of punishment?

'''Remedies:''' No. The 8th Amendment specifically addresses clients 75 years of age. However, there may be other criteria for mitigation.

----

== Mitigation of Punishment for Defendants who Confess Truthfully ==

Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented.<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>

The addition of new ¶ 3 to Art. 67 CL provides the opportunity for mitigation of sentence even though a defendant did not initially voluntarily surrender.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Whenever a defendant accepts guilt, mitigation of punishment should be argued.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was detained by the police for the commission of the crime of robbery of private property under Art.263 CL. After your investigation and preparation with the client, you and he have decided that the best course for him is to confess to his guilt and tell the police about plans of others he knows to commit a robbery of apartment residences in a nearby neighborhood.

'''Question:''' Is your client eligible for mitigation of sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Under Art.67 new ¶ 3 CL , he is eligible.

----

== Changes Related to Juveniles ==

Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records, directs that a sentence of probation be given under certain circumstances, and declares that the conviction is not a criminal record for purposes of recidivism

* Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records when offense committed as a juvenile and the sentence was a term of imprisonment of not more than five years<ref>Art. 100 CL</ref>
* In the above circumstance a juvenile conviction need not be disclosed when joining the army or getting a job.
* The conviction cannot be counted toward recidivism<ref>Art. 65 ¶ 1CL</ref>
* If the sentence is a fixed term of imprisonment of not more than three years, and the case fits the four conditions laid out in Art.72 CL, a juvenile shall be given probation. Probation shall be given to juveniles in this circumstance if the juvenile is repentant, unlikely to repeat his offense, and his release will not adversely impact the community.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials to show that the juvenile has a positive attitude toward rejoining the community and that members of his community support his return.

----
== Expansion of Possible Conditions Placed on Sentences of Public Surveillance: ==

The sentence of public surveillance has been changed under the amended law. In addition to the supervisory scheme detailed in Art. 39 CL, the court may also order community correction and orders restraining defendants from meeting certain people, entering certain places, and/or engaging in certain activities.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of theft by pick pocketing of a large number of wallets while in an internet café. He was sentenced to public surveillance for 6 months.

'''Question 1:''' Under the new rules can your client be restricted from entering certain places or areas?
'''Remedies:''' Yes. The applicability of the new restrictions is subject to the circumstances of the crime. In this instance, the crime was carried out in the Internet cafe, and it could be possible for a court to consider it necessary to include in the sentence, a restriction to enter Internet cafes.

'''Question 2:''' Is the imposition of the new restrictions mandatory under the amended law?

'''Remedies:''' As indicated by the word may, the imposition of these measures are up to the discretion of the court on consideration of the circumstances of the case. Therefore defense lawyers should identify and mitigate the circumstances that would trigger the court to impose these additional measures. For example, a defender might respond to a request for a broad order restricting his client from going to a geographical area where a crime occurred by obtaining documents demonstrating that the defendant’s presence in the area is needed for him to perform valuable work.

'''Question 3:''' Under the new rules is the PSB solely responsible for executing the sentence?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 38 ¶2 CL has been modified so that community correction shall apply where a defendant is sentenced to public surveillance; former Art. 38 ¶2 CL stated that a public security organ should execute the surveillance, but this has been deleted. What this may mean in practice is that clients with suspended sentences will now have to report to community centers and obtain compulsory corrective education, as opposed to report to the PSB on a regular basis. The role of the PSB is changed. Only if the orders of the court are disobeyed will public security punishment be employed according to Art. 38¶4 CL.

----
== Amendment to Criminal Punishments ==

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Combined Crimes'''

Maximum term of imprisonment for combined punishment may not exceed 25 years if total of combined punishments is 35 years or more, and it may not exceed 20 years if total of combined punishments is less than 35 years (Art. 69 CL).

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Commuted Sentence'''

Death penalty commutation for major meritorious service increased to 25 years from 15-20 years. (Art .50 CL)

=== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ===

The increase of maximum sentences in both of the instances set forth above is consistent with the 8th Amendment’s over-all scheme: to increase punishment for serious crimes that endanger the public safety, while fostering leniency for minor crimes.

==== Practice Point for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should be aware of Art. 12 CL which sets out the “rule of lenity” for crimes committed under laws that have been superseded by laws that create harsher punishments.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client is charged with shielding drug smugglers,<ref>Art. 349 CL</ref> conspiring to cultivate marijuana and opium,<ref>Art. 351 CL</ref> and drug trafficking.<ref>Art. 347 CL</ref> The combined punishment for his crimes is more than 35 years. His crimes are charged to have occurred in December, 2010 but he is arrested and brought to trial on June 11, 2011.

'''Question:''' Is this client’s maximum sentence 25 years or does it remain 20 years?

'''Remedies:''' According to Art. 12 CL, in this situation the lighter punishment must apply.

----

== Clarification and Gradation of Criminal Offenses ==

The amendments in these articles reflect rising concerns regarding production and sale of consumption goods, in particular, foodstuffs and drugs. On plain reading they appear to be aimed at lowering the threshold to absorb more instances of criminal behavior into the definition of the offense. This is done through eliminating ambiguities in the formulation of crime, and simultaneously, through creating a gradation of the offenses to include aggravating circumstances that would merit heavier punishment. Legislators have also tightened the punishment of these offenses by removing the discretion to impose a fine, making it instead a compulsory punishment at each grade of the offense.

==== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ====

The 8th Amendment has changed the “elements” of crimes regarding the production and sale of consumption goods, particularly food and drugs.

'''Art. 141(1) CL:''' removes the need to prove the harmful risk posed by the drugs. The amendment appears to introduce strict liability for engaging in production and/or sale of fake drugs, regardless of the potentially noxious effect on consumers. The prosecution does not need to prove the harmful effect of the drugs to obtain a conviction, but rather the focus of the court would be on the fake quality of the drugs (that they were produced without a license, for example), and where it concerns sale, likely on the mental state of the person charged with the offense (their knowledge). There are three levels of offense:
# Manufactures or sells
# Manufactures of sells where serious harm to human health is caused or there are other grave circumstances
# Manufactures or sells where death is caused to another person or there are other especially serious consequences

'''Art. 143 CL:''' replaced hygiene standards for safety standards and added a condition of sufficiency to cause serious food poisoning or disease, that must be satisfied in order to prove the crime. It is unclear whether the condition attaches to the food product or to the means, methods and conditions of production/sale of the product. If the former, the prosecution would need to show that production/sale conditions are below required safety standards and that the food product is sufficiently compromised so as to cause severe food poisoning or illness if consumed. Under the latter approach , proof of non-compliance with safety standards would be sufficient proof of guilt, the actual potential risk - or lack thereof - posed by the food being irrelevant to a determination of guilt or innocence.

'''Art. 144 CL:''' no amendments other than replacing “such foods” with “food mixed with toxic or harmful non-food materials.”

'''Gradation of Crimes:''' A common element of all provisions of the CL is the gradation of offenses consisting generally of three grades of criminal behavior, the term of imprisonment being determined by the gravity of the crime. The new amendments follow this pattern.

==== Practice points for Defense Counsel: ====

The issue for defense lawyers is to identify, and to the extent possible, separate these categories. For example,

''Serious harm to human health or other grave circumstances''
*This is the second seriousness level of the Art. 141(1) CL, where ascertainable harm to human health has been caused. What will be considered serious harm to human health?

''Death is caused to another or there are other especially serious circumstances''
*This is the third seriousness level of the crime.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client produced fake medicine and sold it to a couple of pharmacies. There is no evidence that anyone bought or consumed the medicine.

'''Question:''' Can your client be found guilty, even if there is no evidence that the fake medicine was consumed by anyone?

'''Remedies:''' Your client is strictly liable for producing fake medicine, and may be convicted to a fixed term of imprisonment of maximum 3 years, in addition to a fine. There is no proof that anyone ever bought or consumed the fake medicine, and therefore no evidence of harm to human health arising out of the crime. However, under the terms of “other grave circumstances” your client may still receive a harsher sentence of between 3-10 years. There is no indication of what may fall under “other grave circumstances,” but presumably it could be related to the toxicity levels in the fake medicine. If there is no evidence to support that the fake medicine was dangerous, you should argue that there is no evidence of grave circumstances.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* The defense should argue that clear proof of a likelihood of actual harm must be identified for the court by the prosecution, in order for the court to find “other grave circumstances” in the case.

'''Art. 81 CL'''- Conditions for Obtaining Parole

Main Changes:

* Increased the minimum term before parole eligibility to 13 years for those convicted to life imprisonment
* Eliminated parole for recidivists;
* Added arson and organized violent crime to the list of offenses for which there is no parole eligibility;
* Specified that those convicted of intentional homicide may not be paroled, thereby allowing parole for those convicted of negligent homicide;
* Allows the court to consider impact of inmate’s release upon the community where he/she will live.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of negligent homicide in 2007 and was sentenced to seven years in prison under Art. 233 CL. In prison he has shown good behavior and taken advantage of all educational programs that were available. He wants to apply for parole to return home.

'''Question 1:''' Is he eligible for parole?

'''Remedies:''' Yes, under the CL as now amended. He has served more than half of his sentence and this crime is now an eligible crime for parole.

'''Question 2:''' Will the court consider the impact of your client’s release upon the community where he will live?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials that show how the defendant’s family will monitor him; why he is now prepared to accept parole supervision, and why he will be successful. The materials should clearly address why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if parole is granted.

----
== Selected Examples of New Crimes: ==

Abandonment of Official Duties by State Officials and Absconding<ref>Art. 109 CL</ref>

* The elements of the crime have been clarified. Proof that the act endangered state security is removed.

Drunk Driving and Car Racing<ref>Art. 133(a) CL</ref>

* Two new offenses are established
* No strict liability: prosecution must prove the existence of grave circumstances to obtain conviction.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client drank baijiu at a karaoke club over several hours. He then left in his car. Police observed him get in his car and pulled him over. Breath testing revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of 70mg. per 100ml. of blood.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of the new crime of drunk driving?

'''Remedy:''' No, while “drunk” is not defined in the new law, it is defined in National Standard GB 19522.<ref>National Standard GB 19522 (2004), Vehicle Driver: Blood/Breath Alcohol Test</ref> To be considered drunk the test must show an alcohol level 80mg. per 100 ml. of blood. This client, while subject to administrative punishment, is not guilty of the new crime of “drunk driving”.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* Since drunk driving is now criminalized, it is important to understand how breath and blood testing are done and what kinds of errors may occur.
* The definition of “drunk” should be strictly adhered to in the evidence.

----
''We hope this practice note helps you understand and apply the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the PRC. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at jmandel@ibj.org.''

==References==

<references/>

----
See [[media:eighthamendment.pdf|Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment PDF]]
__NOTOC__

Practice Note - Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

2011-06-03T12:10:02Z

Saviles: /* Practice Points for Defense Council: */

'''Adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 2011'''

''Effective: May 1, 2011''<ref>Prepared by: International Bridges to Justice – China Staff: Judith Mandel, Chen Dong, Beatriz Garcia, Chen Xinyu, William Mattimore</ref>

This practice note describes new laws and changes to existing laws enacted through the 8th Amendment, creates some practice points for defense counsel, and applies the new amendments to hypothetical situations to assist the practitioner.

=OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE 8TH AMENDMENT=

''Effective May 1, 2011''

# Reduction in the number of crimes from 68 to 55 that are eligible for the death penalty
# Introduction of exclusion of death penalty at 75 years of age (unless the accused caused the death of another person by extremely cruel means), and availability of mitigated punishment<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶2 CL</ref>
# Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>
# Elimination of a public record of conviction, with penalty of less than five years, for youth who commit a crime when under the age of 18<ref>Art.100 CL</ref>
# Amendments to criminal punishment, including provision for community correction and prohibitions regarding engaging in certain activities, going to places or contacting people, parole regulations, an increase of minimum sentence requirements, and regulations affecting recidivists<ref>Art. 38 ¶2, ¶3 CL</ref>
# Clarification of crimes and gradation of criminal offenses
# Added Crimes.
## Drunk driving<ref>Art. 133A CL</ref>
## Bribery of foreign official or international public organizations<ref>Art. 164 ¶.2 CL</ref>
## Falsely writing out invoices<ref>Art. 205A CL</ref>
## Holding forged invoices<ref>Art. 210A CL</ref>
## Organizing the trading in human organs<ref>Art. 234A CL</ref>
## Assistance in forcing others to do labor<ref>Art. 244¶.2 CL</ref>
## Malicious arrears of wages<ref>Art. 276A CL</ref>
## Food safety dereliction of duty<ref>Art. 408A CL</ref>indented line/

----
= DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES =

== Elimination of the death penalty for 13 offenses: ==

*Smuggling of artifacts; smuggling of precious metals; smuggling of rare animals or rare animal products; crime of smuggling ordinary cargos and articles, providing armed escort for smuggling;<ref>Art. 151, Art. 153 ¶1, Art. 157 CL</ref>
*Notes fraud; financial instrument fraud; credit fraud; falsely writing out value added tax invoices or any other invoices for obtaining fraudulent tax refunds; forging VAT invoices or selling fake VAT invoices;<ref>Art. 194, Art. 195, Art. 205,Art. 206 CL</ref>
*Excavating and robbing sites of ancient culture or ancient tombs; crime of excavating ancient human fossils or ancient vertebrate fossils;<ref>Art. 328, Art. 328 ¶.2 CL</ref>
*Crime of teaching another person how to commit a crime;<ref>Art. 295 CL</ref>
*Theft.<ref>Art. 264 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

The elimination of the death penalty for the above listed crimes reflects the reality of the judgments for these crimes. The changes remove the penalty of death for those crimes for which death has not been given, or upheld, in recent years. Defense lawyers should be aware of existing trends in sentencing judgments. For example, while the death penalty remains a possible punishment for serious infliction of injury<ref>Art. 234 CL</ref> it is not often requested unless the injury is inflicted by especially cruel means and the degree of resulting disability to the victim is especially extreme, and more likely, only if death is caused.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client has been charged with robbery.<ref>Art.263 CL</ref> He stole a purse from a woman on the street. As he ran away the woman saw that he had a gun in his pocket.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of robbery under Art.263 ¶7 CL (“robbing with a gun”) and subject to the imposition of death, or is he guilty of Art.264CL (theft with a lethal weapon), and not subject to the imposition of death.

'''Remedies:''' Burglary,<ref>Art.26 CL</ref> or stealing by pickpockets with a lethal weapon is now defined as theft. The death penalty has been eliminated for the crime of theft.
The client is guilty of the crime of stealing with a lethal weapon but not of robbery since the gun was not used to bring about the theft. He is not subject to the death penalty.

----

== Punishment limitations for persons 75 years or older ==

Persons 75 years or older are not subject to the death penalty and are eligible for mitigated punishment.<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶ 2, Art. 72 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel ====

* Remember to verify the age of any defendant who is senior.
* Attention: a lighter punishment may be given for an intentional crime but shall be given for a negligent one.
* Attention: the senior over 75 can be subjected to the death penalty only on condition that the crime is especially cruel.
* Obtaining probation for a defendant who is 75 years of age (probation at this age is mandatory if the conditions in the article are met)<ref>Art. 72 CL</ref>
* Defense counsel should prepare materials that address:
** how the defendant’s family will monitor and take care of him/her;
** the health condition of the defendant;
** showing why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if probation is granted.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario 1:''' Your client has been charged with intentional murder. At the time of commission of the offense your client was 74 years old, but turned 75 while in detention.

'''Question:''' If found guilty, is your client eligible for the death penalty?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 49 CL has been modified so that defendants excluded from the death penalty include those who at the time of the commission of the crime had not yet attained the age of 75, so long as they have reached the age by the trial stage. It is important to note that this provision does not exclude ALL defendants 75 years or older, since it gives judges the discretion to assign the death penalty in cases of especial cruelty.

'''Scenario 2:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with intentionally causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Maybe. Art. 17 ¶2 of the amended CL states that where the crime is intentional, the defendant who is 75 years or older may be eligible for mitigated punishment. This may indicate that the existence of grave/cruel circumstances in the way the crime was committed may result in the imposition of the harsher penalty, notwithstanding the age of the defendant. This interpretation is consistent with the amendment discussed above to Art. 49 CL which, although generally exempting senior citizens from the imposition of the death penalty, nevertheless leaves judges with the discretion to depart from the principle where especially cruel circumstances are present.

'''Scenario 3:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with negligently causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

'''Scenario 4:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been convicted of an offense with a fixed-term imprisonment of 3 years or less.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for suspended sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Senior citizens aged 75 years and above are eligible for suspended sentence under modifications to Art. 72 CL provided they meet the stipulated criteria.

'''Scenario 5:''' Your client is 68 years of age and has been convicted of inflicting intentional injury (Art. 234 CL) causing severe injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigation of punishment?

'''Remedies:''' No. The 8th Amendment specifically addresses clients 75 years of age. However, there may be other criteria for mitigation.

----

== Mitigation of Punishment for Defendants who Confess Truthfully ==

Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented.<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>

The addition of new ¶ 3 to Art. 67 CL provides the opportunity for mitigation of sentence even though a defendant did not initially voluntarily surrender.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Whenever a defendant accepts guilt, mitigation of punishment should be argued.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was detained by the police for the commission of the crime of robbery of private property under Art.263 CL. After your investigation and preparation with the client, you and he have decided that the best course for him is to confess to his guilt and tell the police about plans of others he knows to commit a robbery of apartment residences in a nearby neighborhood.

'''Question:''' Is your client eligible for mitigation of sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Under Art.67 new ¶ 3 CL , he is eligible.

----

== Changes Related to Juveniles ==

Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records, directs that a sentence of probation be given under certain circumstances, and declares that the conviction is not a criminal record for purposes of recidivism

* Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records when offense committed as a juvenile and the sentence was a term of imprisonment of not more than five years<ref>Art. 100 CL</ref>
* In the above circumstance a juvenile conviction need not be disclosed when joining the army or getting a job.
* The conviction cannot be counted toward recidivism<ref>Art. 65 ¶ 1CL</ref>
* If the sentence is a fixed term of imprisonment of not more than three years, and the case fits the four conditions laid out in Art.72 CL, a juvenile shall be given probation. Probation shall be given to juveniles in this circumstance if the juvenile is repentant, unlikely to repeat his offense, and his release will not adversely impact the community.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials to show that the juvenile has a positive attitude toward rejoining the community and that members of his community support his return.

----
== Expansion of Possible Conditions Placed on Sentences of Public Surveillance: ==

The sentence of public surveillance has been changed under the amended law. In addition to the supervisory scheme detailed in Art. 39 CL, the court may also order community correction and orders restraining defendants from meeting certain people, entering certain places, and/or engaging in certain activities.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of theft by pick pocketing of a large number of wallets while in an internet café. He was sentenced to public surveillance for 6 months.

'''Question 1:''' Under the new rules can your client be restricted from entering certain places or areas?
'''Remedies:''' Yes. The applicability of the new restrictions is subject to the circumstances of the crime. In this instance, the crime was carried out in the Internet cafe, and it could be possible for a court to consider it necessary to include in the sentence, a restriction to enter Internet cafes.

'''Question 2:''' Is the imposition of the new restrictions mandatory under the amended law?

'''Remedies:''' As indicated by the word may, the imposition of these measures are up to the discretion of the court on consideration of the circumstances of the case. Therefore defense lawyers should identify and mitigate the circumstances that would trigger the court to impose these additional measures. For example, a defender might respond to a request for a broad order restricting his client from going to a geographical area where a crime occurred by obtaining documents demonstrating that the defendant’s presence in the area is needed for him to perform valuable work.

'''Question 3:''' Under the new rules is the PSB solely responsible for executing the sentence?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 38 ¶2 CL has been modified so that community correction shall apply where a defendant is sentenced to public surveillance; former Art. 38 ¶2 CL stated that a public security organ should execute the surveillance, but this has been deleted. What this may mean in practice is that clients with suspended sentences will now have to report to community centers and obtain compulsory corrective education, as opposed to report to the PSB on a regular basis. The role of the PSB is changed. Only if the orders of the court are disobeyed will public security punishment be employed according to Art. 38¶4 CL.

----
== Amendment to Criminal Punishments ==

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Combined Crimes'''

Maximum term of imprisonment for combined punishment may not exceed 25 years if total of combined punishments is 35 years or more, and it may not exceed 20 years if total of combined punishments is less than 35 years (Art. 69 CL).

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Commuted Sentence'''

Death penalty commutation for major meritorious service increased to 25 years from 15-20 years. (Art .50 CL)

=== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ===

The increase of maximum sentences in both of the instances set forth above is consistent with the 8th Amendment’s over-all scheme: to increase punishment for serious crimes that endanger the public safety, while fostering leniency for minor crimes.

==== Practice Point for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should be aware of Art. 12 CL which sets out the “rule of lenity” for crimes committed under laws that have been superseded by laws that create harsher punishments.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client is charged with shielding drug smugglers,<ref>Art. 349 CL</ref> conspiring to cultivate marijuana and opium,<ref>Art. 351 CL</ref> and drug trafficking.<ref>Art. 347 CL</ref> The combined punishment for his crimes is more than 35 years. His crimes are charged to have occurred in December, 2010 but he is arrested and brought to trial on June 11, 2011.

'''Question:''' Is this client’s maximum sentence 25 years or does it remain 20 years?

'''Remedies:''' According to Art. 12 CL, in this situation the lighter punishment must apply.

----

== Clarification and Gradation of Criminal Offenses ==

The amendments in these articles reflect rising concerns regarding production and sale of consumption goods, in particular, foodstuffs and drugs. On plain reading they appear to be aimed at lowering the threshold to absorb more instances of criminal behavior into the definition of the offense. This is done through eliminating ambiguities in the formulation of crime, and simultaneously, through creating a gradation of the offenses to include aggravating circumstances that would merit heavier punishment. Legislators have also tightened the punishment of these offenses by removing the discretion to impose a fine, making it instead a compulsory punishment at each grade of the offense.

==== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ====

The 8th Amendment has changed the “elements” of crimes regarding the production and sale of consumption goods, particularly food and drugs.

'''Art. 141(1) CL:''' removes the need to prove the harmful risk posed by the drugs. The amendment appears to introduce strict liability for engaging in production and/or sale of fake drugs, regardless of the potentially noxious effect on consumers. The prosecution does not need to prove the harmful effect of the drugs to obtain a conviction, but rather the focus of the court would be on the fake quality of the drugs (that they were produced without a license, for example), and where it concerns sale, likely on the mental state of the person charged with the offense (their knowledge). There are three levels of offense:
# Manufactures or sells
# Manufactures of sells where serious harm to human health is caused or there are other grave circumstances
# Manufactures or sells where death is caused to another person or there are other especially serious consequences

'''Art. 143 CL:''' replaced hygiene standards for safety standards and added a condition of sufficiency to cause serious food poisoning or disease, that must be satisfied in order to prove the crime. It is unclear whether the condition attaches to the food product or to the means, methods and conditions of production/sale of the product. If the former, the prosecution would need to show that production/sale conditions are below required safety standards and that the food product is sufficiently compromised so as to cause severe food poisoning or illness if consumed. Under the latter approach , proof of non-compliance with safety standards would be sufficient proof of guilt, the actual potential risk - or lack thereof - posed by the food being irrelevant to a determination of guilt or innocence.

'''Art. 144 CL:''' no amendments other than replacing “such foods” with “food mixed with toxic or harmful non-food materials.”

'''Gradation of Crimes:''' A common element of all provisions of the CL is the gradation of offenses consisting generally of three grades of criminal behavior, the term of imprisonment being determined by the gravity of the crime. The new amendments follow this pattern.

==== Practice points for Defense Counsel: ====

The issue for defense lawyers is to identify, and to the extent possible, separate these categories. For example,

''Serious harm to human health or other grave circumstances''
*This is the second seriousness level of the Art. 141(1) CL, where ascertainable harm to human health has been caused. What will be considered serious harm to human health?

''Death is caused to another or there are other especially serious circumstances''
*This is the third seriousness level of the crime.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client produced fake medicine and sold it to a couple of pharmacies. There is no evidence that anyone bought or consumed the medicine.

'''Question:''' Can your client be found guilty, even if there is no evidence that the fake medicine was consumed by anyone?

'''Remedies:''' Your client is strictly liable for producing fake medicine, and may be convicted to a fixed term of imprisonment of maximum 3 years, in addition to a fine. There is no proof that anyone ever bought or consumed the fake medicine, and therefore no evidence of harm to human health arising out of the crime. However, under the terms of “other grave circumstances” your client may still receive a harsher sentence of between 3-10 years. There is no indication of what may fall under “other grave circumstances,” but presumably it could be related to the toxicity levels in the fake medicine. If there is no evidence to support that the fake medicine was dangerous, you should argue that there is no evidence of grave circumstances.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* The defense should argue that clear proof of a likelihood of actual harm must be identified for the court by the prosecution, in order for the court to find “other grave circumstances” in the case.

'''Art. 81 CL'''- Conditions for Obtaining Parole

Main Changes:

* Increased the minimum term before parole eligibility to 13 years for those convicted to life imprisonment
* Eliminated parole for recidivists;
* Added arson and organized violent crime to the list of offenses for which there is no parole eligibility;
* Specified that those convicted of intentional homicide may not be paroled, thereby allowing parole for those convicted of negligent homicide;
* Allows the court to consider impact of inmate’s release upon the community where he/she will live.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of negligent homicide in 2007 and was sentenced to seven years in prison under Art. 233 CL. In prison he has shown good behavior and taken advantage of all educational programs that were available. He wants to apply for parole to return home.

'''Question 1:''' Is he eligible for parole?

'''Remedies:''' Yes, under the CL as now amended. He has served more than half of his sentence and this crime is now an eligible crime for parole.

'''Question 2:''' Will the court consider the impact of your client’s release upon the community where he will live?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials that show how the defendant’s family will monitor him; why he is now prepared to accept parole supervision, and why he will be successful. The materials should clearly address why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if parole is granted.

----
== Selected Examples of New Crimes: ==

Abandonment of Official Duties by State Officials and Absconding<ref>Art. 109 CL</ref>

* The elements of the crime have been clarified. Proof that the act endangered state security is removed.

Drunk Driving and Car Racing<ref>Art. 133(a) CL</ref>

* Two new offenses are established
* No strict liability: prosecution must prove the existence of grave circumstances to obtain conviction.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client drank baijiu at a karaoke club over several hours. He then left in his car. Police observed him get in his car and pulled him over. Breath testing revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of 70mg. per 100ml. of blood.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of the new crime of drunk driving?

'''Remedy:''' No, while “drunk” is not defined in the new law, it is defined in National Standard GB 19522.<ref>National Standard GB 19522 (2004), Vehicle Driver: Blood/Breath Alcohol Test</ref> To be considered drunk the test must show an alcohol level 80mg. per 100 ml. of blood. This client, while subject to administrative punishment, is not guilty of the new crime of “drunk driving”.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* Since drunk driving is now criminalized, it is important to understand how breath and blood testing are done and what kinds of errors may occur.
* The definition of “drunk” should be strictly adhered to in the evidence.

----
''We hope this practice note helps you understand and apply the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the PRC. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at jmandel@ibj.org.''

See [[media:eighthamendment.pdf|Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment PDF]]

----

==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__

Practice Note - Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

2011-06-03T12:09:23Z

Saviles: /* References */

'''Adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 2011'''

''Effective: May 1, 2011''<ref>Prepared by: International Bridges to Justice – China Staff: Judith Mandel, Chen Dong, Beatriz Garcia, Chen Xinyu, William Mattimore</ref>

This practice note describes new laws and changes to existing laws enacted through the 8th Amendment, creates some practice points for defense counsel, and applies the new amendments to hypothetical situations to assist the practitioner.

=OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL LAW INCLUDED IN THE 8TH AMENDMENT=

''Effective May 1, 2011''

# Reduction in the number of crimes from 68 to 55 that are eligible for the death penalty
# Introduction of exclusion of death penalty at 75 years of age (unless the accused caused the death of another person by extremely cruel means), and availability of mitigated punishment<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶2 CL</ref>
# Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>
# Elimination of a public record of conviction, with penalty of less than five years, for youth who commit a crime when under the age of 18<ref>Art.100 CL</ref>
# Amendments to criminal punishment, including provision for community correction and prohibitions regarding engaging in certain activities, going to places or contacting people, parole regulations, an increase of minimum sentence requirements, and regulations affecting recidivists<ref>Art. 38 ¶2, ¶3 CL</ref>
# Clarification of crimes and gradation of criminal offenses
# Added Crimes.
## Drunk driving<ref>Art. 133A CL</ref>
## Bribery of foreign official or international public organizations<ref>Art. 164 ¶.2 CL</ref>
## Falsely writing out invoices<ref>Art. 205A CL</ref>
## Holding forged invoices<ref>Art. 210A CL</ref>
## Organizing the trading in human organs<ref>Art. 234A CL</ref>
## Assistance in forcing others to do labor<ref>Art. 244¶.2 CL</ref>
## Malicious arrears of wages<ref>Art. 276A CL</ref>
## Food safety dereliction of duty<ref>Art. 408A CL</ref>indented line/

----
= DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES =

== Elimination of the death penalty for 13 offenses: ==

*Smuggling of artifacts; smuggling of precious metals; smuggling of rare animals or rare animal products; crime of smuggling ordinary cargos and articles, providing armed escort for smuggling;<ref>Art. 151, Art. 153 ¶1, Art. 157 CL</ref>
*Notes fraud; financial instrument fraud; credit fraud; falsely writing out value added tax invoices or any other invoices for obtaining fraudulent tax refunds; forging VAT invoices or selling fake VAT invoices;<ref>Art. 194, Art. 195, Art. 205,Art. 206 CL</ref>
*Excavating and robbing sites of ancient culture or ancient tombs; crime of excavating ancient human fossils or ancient vertebrate fossils;<ref>Art. 328, Art. 328 ¶.2 CL</ref>
*Crime of teaching another person how to commit a crime;<ref>Art. 295 CL</ref>
*Theft.<ref>Art. 264 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

The elimination of the death penalty for the above listed crimes reflects the reality of the judgments for these crimes. The changes remove the penalty of death for those crimes for which death has not been given, or upheld, in recent years. Defense lawyers should be aware of existing trends in sentencing judgments. For example, while the death penalty remains a possible punishment for serious infliction of injury<ref>Art. 234 CL</ref> it is not often requested unless the injury is inflicted by especially cruel means and the degree of resulting disability to the victim is especially extreme, and more likely, only if death is caused.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client has been charged with robbery.<ref>Art.263 CL</ref> He stole a purse from a woman on the street. As he ran away the woman saw that he had a gun in his pocket.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of robbery under Art.263 ¶7 CL (“robbing with a gun”) and subject to the imposition of death, or is he guilty of Art.264CL (theft with a lethal weapon), and not subject to the imposition of death.

'''Remedies:''' Burglary,<ref>Art.26 CL</ref> or stealing by pickpockets with a lethal weapon is now defined as theft. The death penalty has been eliminated for the crime of theft.
The client is guilty of the crime of stealing with a lethal weapon but not of robbery since the gun was not used to bring about the theft. He is not subject to the death penalty.

----

== Punishment limitations for persons 75 years or older ==

Persons 75 years or older are not subject to the death penalty and are eligible for mitigated punishment.<ref>Art. 17A, Art. 49¶ 2, Art. 72 CL</ref>

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel ====

* Remember to verify the age of any defendant who is senior.
* Attention: a lighter punishment may be given for an intentional crime but shall be given for a negligent one.
* Attention: the senior over 75 can be subjected to the death penalty only on condition that the crime is especially cruel.
* Obtaining probation for a defendant who is 75 years of age (probation at this age is mandatory if the conditions in the article are met)<ref>Art. 72 CL</ref>
* Defense counsel should prepare materials that address:
** how the defendant’s family will monitor and take care of him/her;
** the health condition of the defendant;
** showing why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if probation is granted.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario 1:''' Your client has been charged with intentional murder. At the time of commission of the offense your client was 74 years old, but turned 75 while in detention.

'''Question:''' If found guilty, is your client eligible for the death penalty?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 49 CL has been modified so that defendants excluded from the death penalty include those who at the time of the commission of the crime had not yet attained the age of 75, so long as they have reached the age by the trial stage. It is important to note that this provision does not exclude ALL defendants 75 years or older, since it gives judges the discretion to assign the death penalty in cases of especial cruelty.

'''Scenario 2:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with intentionally causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Maybe. Art. 17 ¶2 of the amended CL states that where the crime is intentional, the defendant who is 75 years or older may be eligible for mitigated punishment. This may indicate that the existence of grave/cruel circumstances in the way the crime was committed may result in the imposition of the harsher penalty, notwithstanding the age of the defendant. This interpretation is consistent with the amendment discussed above to Art. 49 CL which, although generally exempting senior citizens from the imposition of the death penalty, nevertheless leaves judges with the discretion to depart from the principle where especially cruel circumstances are present.

'''Scenario 3:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been charged with negligently causing serious bodily injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigated punishment under the new rules?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

'''Scenario 4:''' Your client who is 75 years old has been convicted of an offense with a fixed-term imprisonment of 3 years or less.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for suspended sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Senior citizens aged 75 years and above are eligible for suspended sentence under modifications to Art. 72 CL provided they meet the stipulated criteria.

'''Scenario 5:''' Your client is 68 years of age and has been convicted of inflicting intentional injury (Art. 234 CL) causing severe injury.

'''Question:''' Is he eligible for mitigation of punishment?

'''Remedies:''' No. The 8th Amendment specifically addresses clients 75 years of age. However, there may be other criteria for mitigation.

----

== Mitigation of Punishment for Defendants who Confess Truthfully ==

Allowing mitigation of punishment for defendants who did not initially voluntarily surrender but who later confess truthfully, especially if serious harm is thereby prevented.<ref>Art. 67 ¶ 3 CL</ref>

The addition of new ¶ 3 to Art. 67 CL provides the opportunity for mitigation of sentence even though a defendant did not initially voluntarily surrender.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Whenever a defendant accepts guilt, mitigation of punishment should be argued.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was detained by the police for the commission of the crime of robbery of private property under Art.263 CL. After your investigation and preparation with the client, you and he have decided that the best course for him is to confess to his guilt and tell the police about plans of others he knows to commit a robbery of apartment residences in a nearby neighborhood.

'''Question:''' Is your client eligible for mitigation of sentence?

'''Remedies:''' Yes. Under Art.67 new ¶ 3 CL , he is eligible.

----

== Changes Related to Juveniles ==

Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records, directs that a sentence of probation be given under certain circumstances, and declares that the conviction is not a criminal record for purposes of recidivism

* Introduces an exception to reporting criminal records when offense committed as a juvenile and the sentence was a term of imprisonment of not more than five years<ref>Art. 100 CL</ref>
* In the above circumstance a juvenile conviction need not be disclosed when joining the army or getting a job.
* The conviction cannot be counted toward recidivism<ref>Art. 65 ¶ 1CL</ref>
* If the sentence is a fixed term of imprisonment of not more than three years, and the case fits the four conditions laid out in Art.72 CL, a juvenile shall be given probation. Probation shall be given to juveniles in this circumstance if the juvenile is repentant, unlikely to repeat his offense, and his release will not adversely impact the community.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials to show that the juvenile has a positive attitude toward rejoining the community and that members of his community support his return.

----
== Expansion of Possible Conditions Placed on Sentences of Public Surveillance: ==

The sentence of public surveillance has been changed under the amended law. In addition to the supervisory scheme detailed in Art. 39 CL, the court may also order community correction and orders restraining defendants from meeting certain people, entering certain places, and/or engaging in certain activities.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of theft by pick pocketing of a large number of wallets while in an internet café. He was sentenced to public surveillance for 6 months.

'''Question 1:''' Under the new rules can your client be restricted from entering certain places or areas?
'''Remedies:''' Yes. The applicability of the new restrictions is subject to the circumstances of the crime. In this instance, the crime was carried out in the Internet cafe, and it could be possible for a court to consider it necessary to include in the sentence, a restriction to enter Internet cafes.

'''Question 2:''' Is the imposition of the new restrictions mandatory under the amended law?

'''Remedies:''' As indicated by the word may, the imposition of these measures are up to the discretion of the court on consideration of the circumstances of the case. Therefore defense lawyers should identify and mitigate the circumstances that would trigger the court to impose these additional measures. For example, a defender might respond to a request for a broad order restricting his client from going to a geographical area where a crime occurred by obtaining documents demonstrating that the defendant’s presence in the area is needed for him to perform valuable work.

'''Question 3:''' Under the new rules is the PSB solely responsible for executing the sentence?

'''Remedies:''' No. Art. 38 ¶2 CL has been modified so that community correction shall apply where a defendant is sentenced to public surveillance; former Art. 38 ¶2 CL stated that a public security organ should execute the surveillance, but this has been deleted. What this may mean in practice is that clients with suspended sentences will now have to report to community centers and obtain compulsory corrective education, as opposed to report to the PSB on a regular basis. The role of the PSB is changed. Only if the orders of the court are disobeyed will public security punishment be employed according to Art. 38¶4 CL.

----
== Amendment to Criminal Punishments ==

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Combined Crimes'''

Maximum term of imprisonment for combined punishment may not exceed 25 years if total of combined punishments is 35 years or more, and it may not exceed 20 years if total of combined punishments is less than 35 years (Art. 69 CL).

'''Terms of Imprisonment – Commuted Sentence'''

Death penalty commutation for major meritorious service increased to 25 years from 15-20 years. (Art .50 CL)

=== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ===

The increase of maximum sentences in both of the instances set forth above is consistent with the 8th Amendment’s over-all scheme: to increase punishment for serious crimes that endanger the public safety, while fostering leniency for minor crimes.

==== Practice Point for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should be aware of Art. 12 CL which sets out the “rule of lenity” for crimes committed under laws that have been superseded by laws that create harsher punishments.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client is charged with shielding drug smugglers,<ref>Art. 349 CL</ref> conspiring to cultivate marijuana and opium,<ref>Art. 351 CL</ref> and drug trafficking.<ref>Art. 347 CL</ref> The combined punishment for his crimes is more than 35 years. His crimes are charged to have occurred in December, 2010 but he is arrested and brought to trial on June 11, 2011.

'''Question:''' Is this client’s maximum sentence 25 years or does it remain 20 years?

'''Remedies:''' According to Art. 12 CL, in this situation the lighter punishment must apply.

----

== Clarification and Gradation of Criminal Offenses ==

The amendments in these articles reflect rising concerns regarding production and sale of consumption goods, in particular, foodstuffs and drugs. On plain reading they appear to be aimed at lowering the threshold to absorb more instances of criminal behavior into the definition of the offense. This is done through eliminating ambiguities in the formulation of crime, and simultaneously, through creating a gradation of the offenses to include aggravating circumstances that would merit heavier punishment. Legislators have also tightened the punishment of these offenses by removing the discretion to impose a fine, making it instead a compulsory punishment at each grade of the offense.

==== Pattern of Revision Under the Eight Amendment: ====

The 8th Amendment has changed the “elements” of crimes regarding the production and sale of consumption goods, particularly food and drugs.

'''Art. 141(1) CL:''' removes the need to prove the harmful risk posed by the drugs. The amendment appears to introduce strict liability for engaging in production and/or sale of fake drugs, regardless of the potentially noxious effect on consumers. The prosecution does not need to prove the harmful effect of the drugs to obtain a conviction, but rather the focus of the court would be on the fake quality of the drugs (that they were produced without a license, for example), and where it concerns sale, likely on the mental state of the person charged with the offense (their knowledge). There are three levels of offense:
# Manufactures or sells
# Manufactures of sells where serious harm to human health is caused or there are other grave circumstances
# Manufactures or sells where death is caused to another person or there are other especially serious consequences

'''Art. 143 CL:''' replaced hygiene standards for safety standards and added a condition of sufficiency to cause serious food poisoning or disease, that must be satisfied in order to prove the crime. It is unclear whether the condition attaches to the food product or to the means, methods and conditions of production/sale of the product. If the former, the prosecution would need to show that production/sale conditions are below required safety standards and that the food product is sufficiently compromised so as to cause severe food poisoning or illness if consumed. Under the latter approach , proof of non-compliance with safety standards would be sufficient proof of guilt, the actual potential risk - or lack thereof - posed by the food being irrelevant to a determination of guilt or innocence.

'''Art. 144 CL:''' no amendments other than replacing “such foods” with “food mixed with toxic or harmful non-food materials.”

'''Gradation of Crimes:''' A common element of all provisions of the CL is the gradation of offenses consisting generally of three grades of criminal behavior, the term of imprisonment being determined by the gravity of the crime. The new amendments follow this pattern.

==== Practice points for Defense Counsel: ====

The issue for defense lawyers is to identify, and to the extent possible, separate these categories. For example,

''Serious harm to human health or other grave circumstances''
*This is the second seriousness level of the Art. 141(1) CL, where ascertainable harm to human health has been caused. What will be considered serious harm to human health?

''Death is caused to another or there are other especially serious circumstances''
*This is the third seriousness level of the crime.

==== Hypothetical Scenarios: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client produced fake medicine and sold it to a couple of pharmacies. There is no evidence that anyone bought or consumed the medicine.

'''Question:''' Can your client be found guilty, even if there is no evidence that the fake medicine was consumed by anyone?

'''Remedies:''' Your client is strictly liable for producing fake medicine, and may be convicted to a fixed term of imprisonment of maximum 3 years, in addition to a fine. There is no proof that anyone ever bought or consumed the fake medicine, and therefore no evidence of harm to human health arising out of the crime. However, under the terms of “other grave circumstances” your client may still receive a harsher sentence of between 3-10 years. There is no indication of what may fall under “other grave circumstances,” but presumably it could be related to the toxicity levels in the fake medicine. If there is no evidence to support that the fake medicine was dangerous, you should argue that there is no evidence of grave circumstances.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* The defense should argue that clear proof of a likelihood of actual harm must be identified for the court by the prosecution, in order for the court to find “other grave circumstances” in the case.

'''Art. 81 CL'''- Conditions for Obtaining Parole

Main Changes:

* Increased the minimum term before parole eligibility to 13 years for those convicted to life imprisonment
* Eliminated parole for recidivists;
* Added arson and organized violent crime to the list of offenses for which there is no parole eligibility;
* Specified that those convicted of intentional homicide may not be paroled, thereby allowing parole for those convicted of negligent homicide;
* Allows the court to consider impact of inmate’s release upon the community where he/she will live.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client was convicted of negligent homicide in 2007 and was sentenced to seven years in prison under Art. 233 CL. In prison he has shown good behavior and taken advantage of all educational programs that were available. He wants to apply for parole to return home.

'''Question 1:''' Is he eligible for parole?

'''Remedies:''' Yes, under the CL as now amended. He has served more than half of his sentence and this crime is now an eligible crime for parole.

'''Question 2:''' Will the court consider the impact of your client’s release upon the community where he will live?

'''Remedies:''' Yes.

==== Practice Points for Defense Counsel: ====

* Defense counsel should prepare materials that show how the defendant’s family will monitor him; why he is now prepared to accept parole supervision, and why he will be successful. The materials should clearly address why there will be little or no adverse impact on the community if parole is granted.

----
== Selected Examples of New Crimes: ==

Abandonment of Official Duties by State Officials and Absconding<ref>Art. 109 CL</ref>

* The elements of the crime have been clarified. Proof that the act endangered state security is removed.

Drunk Driving and Car Racing<ref>Art. 133(a) CL</ref>

* Two new offenses are established
* No strict liability: prosecution must prove the existence of grave circumstances to obtain conviction.

==== Hypothetical Scenario: ====

'''Scenario:''' Your client drank baijiu at a karaoke club over several hours. He then left in his car. Police observed him get in his car and pulled him over. Breath testing revealed that he had a blood alcohol level of 70mg. per 100ml. of blood.

'''Question:''' Is the client guilty of the new crime of drunk driving?

'''Remedy:''' No, while “drunk” is not defined in the new law, it is defined in National Standard GB 19522.<ref>National Standard GB 19522 (2004), Vehicle Driver: Blood/Breath Alcohol Test</ref> To be considered drunk the test must show an alcohol level 80mg. per 100 ml. of blood. This client, while subject to administrative punishment, is not guilty of the new crime of “drunk driving”.

==== Practice Points for Defense Council: ====

* Since drunk driving is now criminalized, it is important to understand how breath and blood testing are done and what kinds of errors may occur.
* The definition of “drunk” should be strictly adhered to in the evidence.

----
''We hope this practice note helps you understand and apply the 8th Amendment to the Criminal Law of the PRC. If you have questions or comments, please contact us at jmandel@ibj.org.''

See[[media:eighthamendment.pdf|Changes and Effects: 8th Amendment PDF]]

----
==References==

<references/>

__NOTOC__