In Ontario, is an unsigned oral confession admissible in court. If the police have no evidence, video or audio tapes or eye witnesses ro a crime however if an accused verbally admits to committing a crime, is this enough to convict someone. If this not signed by the accused and the accused says that some of the information recorded by the police is incorrect is this enough to convict someone. How would they go about disputing that some of the information is incorrect?

In Ontario, is an unsigned oral confession admissable in court. If the police have no evidence, video or audio tapes or eye witnesses ro a crime however if an accused verbally admits to committing a crime, is this enough to convict someone. If this not signed by the accused and the accused says that some of the information recorded by the police is incorrect is this enough to convict someone. How would they go about disputing that some of the information is incorrect?


This is way to vague to give a definite answer - that being said an oral confession is admissible - if it's heard by more than one person, then it carries that much more weight.

I'd get an Attorney - "assuming" you made some sort of confession and then changed your mind you could be in trouble.

What kind of crime?

In Ontario, is an unsigned oral confession admissable in court. If the police have no evidence, video or audio tapes or eye witnesses ro a crime however if an accused verbally admits to committing a crime, is this enough to convict someone. If this not signed by the accused and the accused says that some of the information recorded by the police is incorrect is this enough to convict someone. How would they go about disputing that some of the information is incorrect?
Is this the same arrest you've posted before - theft from an employer?

Who did they confess to. But yes it is not uncommom for verbal confessions to be allowed in court

Hello again, e:

I must disagree with my learned friends. If there is no recording of your confession and you didn't sign anything, then it can't be used.

You don't have to dispute it or parts of it. THEY are the ones who have to prove you said such and such, and of course, with nothing written or recorded, all they have is their memory of what you said. It's called hearsay, and it's not good enough in court.

excon

[QUOTE=excon]Hello again, e:

I must disagree with my learned friends. If there is no recording of your confession and you didn't sign anything, then it can't be used.

You don't have to dispute it or parts of it. THEY are the ones who have to prove you said such and such, and of course, with nothing written or recorded, all they have is their memory of what you said. It's called hearsay, and it's not good enough in court.



And I must disagree with your disagreement - if there were notes made of the conversation which lead to the confession as well as notes taken during the confession itself, those notes become important and it's not just a matter of memory.

I think hearsay is more in the "excon told me that he said ..." category than "He said this to me ..." category and the confession would be admissible.

I am talking civil, not criminal matters, of course, but: My example would be - you are in an accident; you tell the Police Officer that you went through the red light. The Officer was not a witness to the accident but he was a witness to your statement and so that is admissible. I am also standing there and I hear your admission - I can testify that that is what you said.

Another Police Officer wanders over and the Police Officer says, "excon said he went through the red light." That second Officer cannot testify - it's hearsay.

If you discuss the accident with me I can testify as to what you said - and "you" can (and probably will) deny you ever said it. Then the Judge decides.

This is another thread where I hope the OP comes back and lets us know what happened.

Hello again:

I agree with Judy's disagreement over my disagreement, which was admittedly, disagreeable.

There are books and books and then a few more books written on this very subject. We haven't even covered a page.

I agree that prosecutorial types think certain items of hearsay can be entered into evidence. Often times it is. Sometimes over the objection of the defense - sometimes the defense is sleeping. If the defense is awake, he's going to object to hearsay. The judge will decide... Then maybe an appellate judge will decide differently... Then maybe the supreme court judges will decide differently again... Then maybe a federal judge will overrule the state supreme court... Then maybe a federal appellate judge will overrule that judge... And, then maybe the US Supreme Court will make the final determination.

What THAT says, is that even attorney's and judges who are well versed on the subject, disagree as to how the law applies.

I agree further, that hearsay in civil claims is given a lot more leeway. Plus, in the US, one would have to be "Mirandized" before his confession could be used in a criminal case...

Then you read about a guy being convicted due to nothing more than a jailhouse snitch saying the perp confessed to him. Then you read about unscrupulous prosecutors who want a conviction at any costs. Did I mention the defense attorney who sleeps through the proceedings?

So, there's what they DO - and there's what's legal for them to DO. Those things are NOT always the same. In terms of this question, the law is in the eye of the beholder.

excon

Hi again, what happened is there were people stealing from where I used to work and the cops came in looking to question them as my employer had video evidence of them hiding things in the back room etc... Well, the guy who they were questionning implicated me as being the one and when the police questionned me I told them I knew what was going on as I did and also how things were being stolen but they assumed it was me who was stealing as the other guy denied actually taking anything. Now I am the one in more trouble and the other guy seems to be getting off. My lawyer says it would be difficult to prove in court that the cop had the information wrong as he would have no reason to write this down incorrectly or to frame me for the crime. My lawyer and the crown have worked out a discharge deal for me which means that I will not have a criminal record. I have told them I would take this however I still feel weird about this since this is all being done on the basis of the police officer's incorrect notes and the word of someone who was trying to clear himself and implicate me. What do you think. I really don't want this to go to trial either as the lawyer is already costing a fortune and since I won't have a criminal record after I sometimes think just go along with it.

Hello again, e:

Well, there you have it. I think you're right. I think you could win at trial, and have NO criminal record. Yes, it'll cost a fortune, but a clean record as opposed to a NOT clean record, is WORTH a fortune...

But, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I was wrong back in '02.

Surly, if you go to trial and lose, they'll slam you as hard as they can. How much confidence to you place in an ex-convict on the internet? Are you feeling lucky?

excon

Hi again, what happened is there were people stealing from where I used to work and the cops came in looking to question them as my employer had video evidence of them hiding things in the back room etc... Well, the guy who they were questionning implicated me as being the one and when the police questionned me I told them I knew what was going on as I did and also how things were being stolen but they assumed it was me who was stealing as the other guy denied actually taking anything. Now I am the one in more trouble and the other guy seems to be getting off. My lawyer says it would be difficult to prove in court that the cop had the information wrong as he would have no reason to write this down incorrectly or to frame me for the crime. My lawyer and the crown have worked out a discharge deal for me which means that I will not have a criminal record. I have told them I would take this however I still feel wierd about this since this is all being done on the basis of the police officer's incorrect notes and the word of someone who was trying to clear himself and implicate me. What do you think. I really don't want this to go to trial either as the lawyer is already costing a fortune and since I won't have a criminal record after I sometimes think just go along with it.


Here is my concern: Your original post says: "I know what I did was stupid but it was totally out of character for me I just got talked into it from other people who had it before at the store and I guess I wanted to appear "cool" in front of them. I was the only one who got caught in the end. I learned from this and just want to set the stage as best as possible so I can continue on with my life."

To me - and only my opinion which doesn't really count anyway - it sounds like you have shifted your story. Originally you did something stupid, other people talked you into "it;" you did "it" to appear cool. Now you are uncomfortable because this is being done on the basis of incorrect notes and someone trying to implicate you and you appear to be saying you are innocent.

Now you seem to be backtracking. If you can't keep your stories straight here you will never keep them straight in Court. You confessed here on a public thread; I have no idea what you said to the Police Officer and other witnesses but - as Excon pointed out - it's probably not admissible anyway.

Take the deal and run!

Hi, yes that is another thing I am afraid of, if I accept the deal it is pretty good however if I go to trial I am afraid if found guilty they will not offer me such a good deal. Is that generally the case if you lose in trial they are harder with the sentencing??