# Deathbed statements to the police **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 23, 2007, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292 "2007-04-23T11:00:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/1 "2007-04-23T11:00:07Z")
I often see on such programs as Law and Order, etc a couple of cops gathered round a hospital bed, listening to and taking down the statement of a dying man. They then usually make a comment to the effect that the statement of a dying man has far more weight in court than other statements. Is this true, and if so why should that be? I understand that it used to be believed that deathbed statements were particularly creditworthy because the person concerned was about to face his maker and thus would not be likely to heap more damnation on himself. But surely in the US, where religion is kept at arm’s-length from the organs of state, such a consideration could not apply in a court of justice? From a secular standpoint perhaps it could be argued that people aren’t likely to tell lies in their last moments. Well, that’s probably true of many people, but certainly not of all. I suspect a significant proportion would remain as vindictive and untrustworthy at the point of death as they were in life. In other words the same considerations would apply in weighing the credibility of such a statement as in any other, ie is the person that made the statement of good character and trustworthy. Again, the right of the accused to confront their accuser is pretty basic in Anglo-American jurisprudence. What happens to that right in a deathbed statement? Couldn’t it be argued that such evidence should be inadmissible on those grounds? Right, I’ve made a fool of myself for long enough, setting up straw men and knocking them down. It’s obvious I know nothing about the law, but I know my cop shows! Is this deathbed statement stuff cut from whole cloth or not? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/2 "2007-04-23T12:32:21Z")
It is as true as can be. It’s called Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2). > [@](#): > > “(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.” As far as the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment goes, the advisory committee notes go a little bit into that: > [@](#): > > "Exception (2). The exception is the familiar dying declaration of the common law, expanded somewhat beyond its traditionally narrow limits. While the original religious justification for the exception may have lost its conviction for some persons over the years, it can scarcely be doubted that powerful psychological pressures are present. See 5 Wigmore § 1443 and the classic statement of Chief Baron Eyre in Rex v. Woodcock, 1 Leach 500, 502, 168 Eng.Rep. 352, 353 (K.B. 1789). > > The common law required that the statement be that of the victim, offered in a prosecution for criminal homicide. Thus declarations by victims in prosecutions for other crimes, e.g. a declaration by a rape victim who dies in childbirth, and all declarations in civil cases were outside the scope of the exception. An occasional statute has removed these restrictions, as in Colo.R.S. § 52-1-20, or has expanded the area of offenses to include abortions, 5 Wigmore § 1432, p. 224, satisfied. The rule contains no requirement that an attempt be made to take the deposition of a declarant." As far as the right to confront witnesses against you, the idea here is that the testimony can be examined as it is and neither side can develop it. The confrontation clause is also quite limited and not the catchall protection we think it is. So if I die, and I finger you as the murderer on my deathbed, that will be accepted by the court, even though, under the normal rules of hearsay, an out of court statement made in order to prove the truth of the matter asserted is not admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/3 "2007-04-23T13:14:31Z")
I don’t get this either- what if I’m a spiteful, lying SOB who would like nothing better than to stick something on someone I don’t like? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/4 "2007-04-23T13:36:44Z")
Thank you for that excellent answer, **Happy Scrappy Hero Pup**! It is troubling, though, to think one could be convicted for murder on the sole testimony of someone who intensely dislikes you, say, or wants to get even with you. The real killer could well be a family member whom he’s happy to forgive, thus giving him the chance to stick one to you after his death. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/5 "2007-04-23T13:40:21Z")
[QUOTE= Wee Bairn] I don’t get this either- what if I’m a spiteful, lying SOB who would like nothing better than to stick something on someone I don’t like? [/QUOTE] The short and altogether unsatisfying answer is that we don’t think this will happen enough, and when it does happen, there will be enough extrinsic evidence that the case won’t live or die by your dying declaration. However, if I am not mistaken, your view holds in India, where dying declarations are out because their social convention is that there’s no reason to tell the truth when dying. It’s an imperfect system, dude. Screws fall out all the time. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/6 "2007-04-23T13:44:44Z")
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn] I don’t get this either- what if I’m a spiteful, lying SOB who would like nothing better than to stick something on someone I don’t like? [/QUOTE] The statement would just be admissible; it would not be proof of guilt, but rather one piece of evidence that the prosecution could present. The defense would have the opportunity to refute it. ---
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/7 "2007-04-23T15:22:11Z")
Is this in any way based on Chrisitianity, in that you wouldn’t think one would lie if they thought they were about to meet their maker I wonder? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/8 "2007-04-23T15:47:14Z")
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn] Is this in any way based on Chrisitianity, in that you wouldn’t think one would lie if they thought they were about to meet their maker I wonder? [/QUOTE] That’s pretty much correct, as stated in the FRE advisory committee notes provided by the Happy Scrappy one. The dying declaration exception codified in the FRE comes from the English common law, and the original rule is centuries old. The rationale lies in the belief that a declaration made by a man who believes that he is about to die is more likely to be true than ordinary declarations, because no man would want to die with a lie on his lips. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/9 "2007-04-23T16:25:43Z")
This is assuming though isn’t it that the deathbed confession was made by someone in perfect command of their faculties? Wouldn’t a dying person often, maybe by the very definition of dying, be losing their ability to be lucid, to remember with great clarity, to understand the implications of everything they’re saying? I’m thinking I remember references to people near death speaking cryptically, since it may be an atypical collection of dying synapses firing that’s propelling their speech. I’m assuming that renders such statements in the “admissable but not proof” category again? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/10 "2007-04-23T17:30:41Z")
Even aside from what might or might not happen in the next life, dying removes the constraints of this life. A person might, for instance, refrain from fingering someone for fear of retribution. But if you’re dying anyway, that might not matter, so you can afford to be candid. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/11 "2007-04-23T17:47:56Z")
Does this hold for letters and such written by someone who’s going off on some venture from which they do not expect to return? And do not return, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/12 "2007-04-23T18:38:45Z")
[QUOTE=lieu] This is assuming though isn’t it that the deathbed confession was made by someone in perfect command of their faculties? Wouldn’t a dying person often, maybe by the very definition of dying, be losing their ability to be lucid, to remember with great clarity, to understand the implications of everything they’re saying? I’m thinking I remember references to people near death speaking cryptically, since it may be an atypical collection of dying synapses firing that’s propelling their speech. I’m assuming that renders such statements in the “admissable but not proof” category again? [/QUOTE] Now you’re thinking like a defense attorney. 🙂 If, say, the person was dying because of massive blunt force head trauma, you could argue that even if the statement were admissable the declarant was in no position to make sense of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/13 "2007-04-23T18:50:23Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Does this hold for letters and such written by someone who’s going off on some venture from which they do not expect to return? And do not return, obviously. [/QUOTE] Probably not. The exception applies when the speaker believes that death is imminent, and the statement is about what caused that death. A expectation that someone expects to die from something at some point in the future is probably too remote. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/14 "2007-04-23T18:52:10Z")
First off, the statements do NOT per se have “far more weight” than other statements. The statements of the dying person as to the identity of his killer or cause of his death are hearsay (assuming the statements are made out of court and are being offered in court for the truth of the matter being asserted) that are nonetheless admissible by virute of a hearsay exception (there are on the order of 30 such exceptions, including the “catch-all”). The statements are admissible evidence. Any weight the statements might have will be determined by context. Second, the above analysis is done under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is not defined the same state to state. It’s possible (and even likely) that each state has a “dying declaration” exception (I haven’t looked), but they are not all “exactly” the exceptions conatined in the Federal Rules of Evidence. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/15 "2007-04-23T18:58:16Z")
[QUOTE=pravnik] Probably not. The exception applies when the speaker believes that death is imminent, and the statement is about what caused that death. A expectation that someone expects to die from something at some point in the future is probably too remote. [/QUOTE] Right, the statement only fits the “dying declaration” exception if it goes to what the declarent believes to be the cause of the death. If a cop wants to testify that old man Brown said on his deathbed that he saw his wife lift money from the corner store registe on Novemebr 20, 2004, that testimony doesn’t come in under the dying declaration exception to prove that the wife liftyed the money, though it might come in to prove the man’s incapacity if the wife died in 1984. ---
**Author:** ![79Eric](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/ecccb3/32.png) [@79Eric](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/79Eric)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/16 "2007-04-23T19:00:52Z")
I doubt a fear of retribution would hold up to a jury. All one has to do is point out people like the kid at Virginia Tech that in his death saw an opportunity to take dozens with him. He had no fear of retribution, so why should anyone else. See how EASY it would be to refute a deathbed confession. And then let’s consider the mounds and mounds of other evidence we now have about the ability to plant memories in people’s minds and how easily it’s done. I’m not sure it would persuade an “average” jury with Americans who are typically uneducated but it shouldn’t be hard for someone mildly intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/17 "2007-04-23T20:22:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Probably not. The exception applies when the speaker believes that death is imminent, and the statement is about what caused that death. A expectation that someone expects to die from something at some point in the future is probably too remote. I think the idea is more like someone leaving a note “I’m going to go confront Guido about that money he owes me. If I don’t come back, it means he probably killed me”. In a statement like that, the author is expecting at least the possibility of imminent death, and his statement is about the cause of that death. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/18 "2007-04-23T20:55:18Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] I think the idea is more like someone leaving a note “I’m going to go confront Guido about that money he owes me. If I don’t come back, it means he probably killed me”. In a statement like that, the author is expecting at least the possibility of imminent death, and his statement is about the cause of that death. [/QUOTE] Interesting question, but I think the result would still be the same. There’s a distinction between the possibility of imminent death and imminent death. In a dying declaration, the declarent believes imminent death is a certainty, and believes he knows the cause. In the hypo the declarant believes imminent death is a possibility, and suspects what the cause might be. He may think he’s going to die, but he’s not dying. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/19 "2007-04-23T21:48:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I think the idea is more like someone leaving a note “I’m going to go confront Guido about that money he owes me. If I don’t come back, it means he probably killed me”. In a statement like that, the author is expecting at least the possibility of imminent death, and his statement is about the cause of that death. This note can be used to prove that you were going to see Guido. Depending on the judge, it might be admissible to prove that Guido met YOU, regardless of Guido’s intent (see _US v. Pheaster_), depending on how the judge feels about “confront;” the word “meet” might make the letter more easily admissible. I still don’t think you’d get it in as a dying declaration, though- “imminent” is a pretty big word, and if I were counsel for Guido, I’d argue that you had no idea when writing it that you ever thought you’d meet Guido; alternatively, if you did meet Guido, there’s no way for you to divine his state of mind or motive to kill you. On edit, **Chronos’s** explanation regarding imminence is a bit clearer than mine. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Bowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Doug\_Bowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_Bowe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2007, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292/20 "2007-04-23T22:30:41Z")
I used to work with a cop who filed our traffic reports. When the AP reported that a pair of police detectives were visiting the porn star John Holmes, Harry said “He’s about to die.” I asked him where his inside info came from. He pointed out the two detectives who were calling on Holmes. He said the reason they’d be dispatched would be to record a dying statement. In this case they’d be looking for any kind of explaination or clue about the Wonderland murders. In this instance they weren’t really looking to find a bad guy. They were looking for some kind of back-story and reasons why the murders happened. BTW, Harry was right, Holmes died of complications from AIDS that night, but didn’t have anything to say to the detectives. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deathbed-statements-to-the-police/401292.md?page=2)