No, any more than it would matter if you told your pal in Guatemala about a crime you committed in Illinois – the question is the authenticity and reliability of the statement, not where it was made.
–Cliffy
Hearsay doesn’t apply to admissions against your own interest.
However, if I admit in this response (or in an interview, or in my upcoming sure-to-be-a-bestseller autobiography) that I’ve used cocaine, that’s not enough for a successful prosecution. The prosecution still would have to prove that I did it within the prosecuting jurisdiction, and there’d be a potential statute of limitations issue, as my admission doesn’t state when the snorting took place.
If, on the other hand, someone admits in an interview that he had a party in Hollywood last week and provided a half pound of coke for his guests, I see no reason whay that statement couldn’t be used to prosecute him. (As always, though, I’ll defer to Bricker on criminal law questions.)
One other thought - just because they could prosecute doesn’t mean that they have to. And why limit it to rock stars, what about Presidents…
Always nice to be recognized!!
It’s doubtful that that statement, standing alone, would make a sufficent record for a reasonable jury to find guilt. The statement itself is absolutely admissible against him, but without some other evidence, I doubt that a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, possession of half a pound of cocaine. There’s not MUCH more needed - but something to indicate that the coke was in fact real, for example… if the statement continued, “…and we all did lines and got so wired,” that might do it. The evidence must be sufficient that, if believed, it excludes every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. There are too many innocent ways the statement above could end up.
Of course, this depends on what we’re charging him with… attempted possession might well be proved simply by that statement, for example.
This is all in theory. As a practical matter, more evidence is certainly needed.
Since he is dead and so beyond the law. Would it have been possible to use Hunter S. Thompson’s (sp?) writings to convict or help convict him for drug offences?