I was watching an episode of “Quincy” the other night, and I was fascinated how different law (and science) are treated with in dramatic series today.
The trial sequence (in which the defendant was brought to trial a measly 2 weeks after his arrest!!!) contained one of those time worn cliches, a defence witness ending up confessing for the crime ala Perry Mason.
It was laughable, but it got me to thinking: is this kind of thing just a plot device for a lazy writer, or does it happen with any frequency?
It seems to me, with all the time put into formulating a prosecution and a defence, that testimony is almost like reciting lines, nothing is left to chance.
Yes, a good defence attourney is quite capable of creating reasonable doubt by making someone else look guilty; but has a witness actually confessed on the stand for a crime they weren’t being tried for? And if so, were they actually convicted?
Had one happen here in Tucson within the last two weeks. From the Stand, the Defendant admitted his crime, to the dismay of his Attorney, and the shock of the entire courtroom.
I think what saraphin is talking about is not the client confessing to the crime but another witness confessing to the crime. Think of like s/he said the old Perry Mason, or a newer example being Legally Blonde (I think that’s the movie). I would be interested if these seemingly farfecthed plot turns actually happen.
I was on a jury in a civil where a similar thing happened. Not a confession, but the proof that the guy who was suing lied came out on the stand.
It was a legal malpractice case. This plaintiff was complaining that he had gone to the defendant (a lawyer) to sue and recover damages over a car accident. Lawyer claimed that he told the guy he had no case. Man claimed that he was told no such thing.
Anyway we had to hear testimony on the auto accident to determine the facts.
Plaintiff claimed (on the stand) that he had never before had an auto accident, and that he had never seen a particular doctor except for a physical once a year.
Defense brings up their expert witness (orthopedic surgeon) they start going over the medical history of the plaintiff.
Remember that doctor that the plaintiff only saw for physicals? Seems this guy was a one-man insurance fraud ring. He went to this guy once every two years or so for treatments related to auto accidents. Multiple auto accidents. Going back over 20 years.
This is where the day ended. Everyone in the jury was, well, stunned. We couldn’t wait for the next day. (How many time have you looked forward to jury duty?)
The next morning, we were kept outside for an extra hour while the lawyers were inside. We see the plaintiff and his lawyer leave the courtroom! WTF? By the way, the plaintiff wasn’t limping as he walked out like he had every other time we had seen him.
We were called in and the judge informed us that the plaintiff had signed a letter stating that he knew his charges were false when he filed suit. In return for this, the defendant promised not to sue his pants off.
The accused usually give evidence - at least they do here in Scotland.
The choice is not one for the defence lawyer, it is the accused’s choice. Often it is required to support a defence (e.g. self-defence) that has been put forward.
Also, juries view an accused with great suspicion if he does not give evidence.
I have had examples of accused admitting their guilt from the witness box, but this is very rare.
Iguana Boy, in the US it is also the accused’s choice whether to testify, but most people discuss it as if the defense lawyer makes the decision.
I haven’t heard of many defendants admitting guilt while testifying. I have heard of one defendant who admitted his guilt during the prosecutor’s opening statement.
There was a local statutory rape case which got thrown out because of testimony by the “victim.” It seems that her mother had come home and found the girl (who was in her mid-teens) having sex with a 21 year old guy. Mom goes nuts has the guy arrested, and the case goes to trial.
On the stand the girl states that she did have sex with the guy, and that he was friend’s with her 22 year old live-in boyfriend. What happened next is that the prosecutor, the judge, the defense lawyer, and the girl all adjourned to the judge’s chambers for a conference. When they came out, the prosecutor apologized to the jury and announced that all charges had been dropped. No explaination of what was discussed in the judge’s chambers that led to the dismissal, but it was enough to get the prosecutor to drop all charges.
This REALLY happened in downtown LA Superior court. An insane guy was charged w/ robbery. The DA asked me how I knew the defendant wasn’t faking.(Don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer) I then mentined that not many malingerers eat feces on toast in their cells. After I heard a few jurors gag, the startled DA asked the judge to dismiss the jury, because the charge was dismissed, & he was making a motion for a psych commitment. This is true-no BS-no pun intended.
Before reading hajario’s comment I was going to cite an old television interview in which Bailey had said he had never seen it happen.
Either way, the point remains that it is rare.
In one of Erroll Flynn’s statutory rape prosecutions the defense apparently won over the jury by getting the young woman to admit on the stand about how willing she had been rom the start; she had been claiming to have been seduced and misled.
Some years ago Rex Carr, one of the most prominent litigators in America, and a man who has been listed in the Guiness Book of World Records for several reasons connected to his legal work (for instance, obtaining the biggest malpractice award in history), got a truck driver to admit on the stand that he had been lying and yes, he had been driving much to fast to stop in time before an accident.
I saw him reenact this cross-examination while I was in law school in the early 90s. Interestingly, as he threw numbers around to prove that the man had to have been speeding, he made a basic error in arithmetic, but neither he, the student playing the man on the stand, or most of the audience, seemed to notice.
This is an interesting difference. In the US, if the defendant testifies, it’s usually a sign that the defense is pretty desperate. Question: In Scottish courts, is the defendant considered innocent until proven guilty, or vice versa? Is there a right to not be required to testify against oneself?
The assumption here is that the prosecution has to come up with enough evidence to prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defendant doesn’t testify, there is usually a distinct instruction to the jury that his declining to do so is in no way to be held against him. I’ve heard that in some other countries the system is different, but am curious what the rule is in Scotland.
I have dealt w/ the British system, but went to school in US. 1st, the defendant’s failure to testify can be commented on.2nd, refusal to talk to the police can be commented on. 3rd, in Scotland only need 9 of 14 jurors to convict. Last, in Scotland(don’t believe England), there is the unique verdict of “not proven.” Sort of, we think he did it, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Years ago, I read an article by F. Lee Bailey, in which he described the differences between real trials and the trials depicted on shows like “Perry Mason.”
As it happens, Bailey was a friend and colleague of Perry Mason’s creator, Erle Stanley Gardner (Bailey and Gardner worked closely together on the famous Dr. Sam Sheppard case). Anyway, Bailey said in this piece that he once asked Gardner if he’d ever actually seen a witness break down on the stand and admit to lying (let alone to committing the crime the defendant was charge with). According to Bailey, Gardner just laughed and said, “Of course not. You?”
Surprisingly, Bailey’s answer was yes- ONCE! Exactly ONCE, Bailey HAD seen a witness break down and confess to a crime on the stand… but Bailey was merely a spectator at that trial. Bailey himself has never gotten a witness to break down on the stand. He says he’s never expected to or even tried to. At best, he hopes to discredit a witness (think of Mark Fuhrmann), or rattle him enough that he becomes less likeable and credible to a jury.