This case bothers me

**amykhar** · #1 07-19-2001, 09:11 AM

A young man went to his priest and told him (non in confession) that two people who were being tried for murder didn't do it because he and other friends did.

The priest urged the boy to be brave and speak up, but his lawyers told him to stay quiet. The two innocent men went to jail. Now, after the confessor's death, the priest has come forward and told his story.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/18/pr...ony/index.html

What bothers me about this case is that the District Attorney's office seems to be trying to get the priest's testimony thrown out. It would seem to me that the DA would be out for truth, not a conviction record.

Any thoughts?

erik_kosberg · #2 07-19-2001, 11:15 AM

The Assistant District Attorney’s statement that the guy “believed his confession was secret and privileged and could never be revealed by his priest” is pretty lame, but even if the priest is entirely accurate in recounting the non-confessional confession, isn’t it still hearsay evidence?

cristina1 · #3 07-19-2001, 12:06 PM

I think it would be considered hearsay, especially after so much time and the fact that the man has died so really cant get a fair trial.

Of course, the fact that innocent people might be in jail isnt a pleasant thought. And if something can help them, should be be obligated to give it a go?

BigJack · #4 07-19-2001, 05:52 PM

Even though it's hearsay, it would be admissible as a statement against interest where the declarant is unavailable.

And I'm constantly amazed what some DAs will do to keep a conviction.

frazzledspice · #5 07-20-2001, 11:24 AM

Even worse than this, I recently heard on the radio that a law was being considered making it possible for judges to ignore requests for new trials based on DNA evidence presented years and years later.

Are our courts so crowded that we can't look into a situation again when presented with scientific evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original trial?

I would hope that this would be voted down unanimously by members of every party, because there seems to be absolutely no justification for it.

erik_kosberg · #6 07-24-2001, 06:38 PM

Morales was released from prison today but prosecutors want to reinstate the conviction.

poseidon · #7 07-24-2001, 07:40 PM

I've always been sickened by some prosecutors who are more interested in their conviction record -- or just making a conviction -- than to seek out the truth. A prosecutor's primary concern should always be that the right person is caught, tried and punished for the crime they have committed.

At the same time, I do not believe that statements made to doctors, lawyers, spiritual leaders, head shrinkers, etc. in confidence should be admissible as evidence in a trial. I know that this is hard, and if this was something against me or a family member or close friend, I'd want everything brought out (and I mean everything). But, stepping back, these are things said in confidence to someone else under very special circumstances.

And, at the same time, if someone committed a murder and confessed to a priest in hopes of salvation/forgiveness/etc. one would hope they have the balls to walk up to the plate and eat their just desserts.