General discussion


legal process and justice

By jck ·
It seems that this John Cooey who killed 9 year old Jessica Lunsford in Citrus County, FL might get off because, even though he voluntarily confessed to the crime, he had requested an attorney and not been given one right away. Since he gave the info where to find her and details in that confession, none of it might be admissible in court to convict him.

When a guy is blatantly obviously guilty of the crime, should it be right to let him go just because the information he volunteered (and didn't keep his mouth shut til he got a lawyer like he was told he could in his Miranda warning) is not "admissible" to convict him??

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

73 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to It depends.

The police don't have to stop asking questions. They can hold you in an interrogation room and ask you all the questions they want, as long as your request is being fulfilled in a timely fashion.

It is up to the detinee to keep his mouth shut until a lawyer arrives to cousel him or control the police questions.

Collapse -

Insanity defense nisnamed.

by TonytheTiger In reply to It only works if

In most states, it's not whether or not you are insane, it's whether or not you knew what you were doing, and whether or not you knew that what you were doing was wrong.

Collapse -

He's already proven his sanity

by Oz_Media In reply to Insanity defense nisnamed ...

He kept her alive - mistake number one for an insanity plea

He recounted the entire incident including his feelings while and WHY he did it - it was concious and he was well aware of the consequences.

He buried her alive out of fear of being caught, booboo.
He kept her in a closet out of fear of being caught - booboo.

He obviously fully understood the repercussions for what he did.

As far as his polygraph without a lawyer, THAT is where he can claim he was not of sound mind and body. He canlaim he was pressured into a confession, but the detail in which he descrtibed the adbuction shows otherwise. A tough case for ANY lawyer, which explains why they are TRYING to have the confession become inadmissible.

Collapse -

I agree,

by TonytheTiger In reply to He's already proven his s ...

but being insane, or not of sound mind, is not legally a detriment to being found guilty. The knowing, and the knowing of rightness are all that is required to qualify being held accountable. In other words, clinical insanity and legal insanity are two different things.

Yep, trying to hide the crime is very strong evidence that he is legally sane.

Collapse -

What I REALLY have a problem with

by jdclyde In reply to legal process and justice

is when there will be evidance like this that is thrown out because of minor technicalities with no malice intended.

Later, if the individual does get off on a technicality then all the evidence that was "stricken from the record" should be fully released. You have video of someone confessing or committing a crime? Give it to the media or a blogger or what not. Let the WORLD know what that person did and HOW they got away with it. I am sure when they find they can't live their lives in peace there will be final justice, with hope from their own hands. RIP.

Collapse -

if that material

by jck In reply to What I REALLY have a prob ...

is filmed on the taxpayer might not be court evidence, but it will be kept somewhere and you have a right to it unless a judge seals it.

Collapse -

once it is stricken

by Oz_Media In reply to What I REALLY have a prob ...

It becomes defamation of character to publicize the info as it is slanderous and not deemed admissible as evidence, thus not acceptable.

It like if you said my company was stealing from people and a judge ruled that your claims were false or incorrectly obtained. For you to then publicize in the news that my company steals from people is pure slander and defamation. YOU will be sued by my company and won't have a leg to stand on.

Collapse -

The system where the criminal has more rights

by jdclyde In reply to once it is stricken

than the victom does, has lots of flaws.

Yes, we have to guard against abuses by the cops but there are many times when it is carried to an extreme that no logical person should tolerate.

I know you CAN'T release the info, but that doesn't mean I can't wish it could be released.

Collapse -


by JamesRL In reply to The system where the crim ...

First off, until the judge/jury has ruled one way or another, the accused is presumed innocent. And that requires equal treatment under the law. We can't bend the rules, or they are no longer rules.

Miranda was created for a reason. Even though the physical side of abuse is diminished, there is still a lot of psychological pressure used by police on suspects. There have been countless incidents where confessions came out, later to be contradicted by physical evidence.

Canada doesn't have Miranda, and we have had our fair share of coerced confessions and murder convictions for people who were exonerated by DNA evidence. Even with Miranda the system isn't perfect.

As much as I have no sympathy for murderers and sex offenders, I also don't want to see the innocent convicted - thats a huge crime as well.


Collapse -

if I play

by jck In reply to once it is stricken

a video tape of Couey confessing...I can't get sued for slander.

He'd have to sue himself...he said the words...not me.

Because a judge deems it inadmissable doesn't mean it isn't public record. ****, half the TV stations had his audio and video confessions within 1 hour of it being released.

A judge would have to seal the record before it was put into public filing, then if it had been released issue a "gag order" for no one to show it.

I don't think that is going to happen.

Back to Community Forum
73 total posts (Page 3 of 8)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums