The Defendant's Confession - Assignment Example

Sometimes, impairment in the defendant’s functioning compromises the defendant’s abilities relevant to the confession process. This report seeks to investigate the damaging impact caused by use of confession. It will also show how a confession can be used in the court of law. Case study Beckwith v. United States (1976) The following case existed following statements made by a taxpayer (Beckwith) to the Internal Revenue agents in his house. During this noncustodial interview, the defendant retorted that he had evaded tax payment at some point.

The interview was carried out to investigate criminal tax fraud. He was arrested and later reined in court, prosecuted and found guilty for tax evasion. However, the defendant claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights before the interview took place (Arthur and Lawrence 220). This did not have any impact on the case since his tax liability was under scrutiny. He served a jail term because of the confession he made during the interview with the IRA. A free and voluntary confession by the defendant is sufficient to convict, without any other evidence whether the confession was made before apprehension, or after, or whether reduced in to writing or not.

If the confession was drawn from the defendant by means of a threat or a promise, then, it is not admissible evidence. Any facts, however, that may be brought to light in consequence of such confession may be proved. A confession, (if made on examination before a magistrate) ought to be taken in writing, and signed by the magistrate. Parol evidence of such a confession will not be received, unless it is clearly proved not to have been reduced into writing. The confession when taken in writing ought to be read over to the defendant, and he should be asked to sign it.

His refusing to do so will not make it inadmissible. The defendant’s confession must not be taken on oath, and if so taken, it cannot be received. His confession is evidence only against himself. In all cases a confession should be provided in evidence for it is a general rule that the full account must be taken together, both that which makes for the defendant and that which makes against him. In the mentioned petition, the defendant's confession was voluntary since the defendant did not expect the matter to be criminalized.

The Internal revenue Agents did not read him his Miranda rights before they interviewed him. Miranda rights are extremely crucial since they act as warning to indicate that whatever you say during the investigation will be incriminated as evidence (Arthur and Lawrence 130). Legal issues related to assessing the ability of individuals, especially those of special populations, to waive their rights are reviewed. An empirical research on the ability of suspects to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary confessions is considered in light of relevant ethical issues and limits of testimony.

Constitutional Law and Miranda Warning A defendant's confession often serves as the most persuasive evidence in criminal trials. It is particularly influential when it serves as the sole or primary source of evidence offered by the prosecution. When a suspect is placed under arrest or is given the impression that he or she has no right free to leave, police officers, or government agents are expected to read the Miranda warning. For example,” You should to remain silent. Anything you say shall evidence in the court of law.

” – As indicated by the U.S. supreme court. However, the