I don’t know about other states, but NY Criminal Procedure Law 60.50 states that a person can’t be convicted based solely on their uncorroborated admission. There has to be some corroboration - at the very least, that a crime took place. And there isn’t any such corroboration in the OP.
Now , it’s entirely possible that the police could talk to Carla, Darla and Marla and get that corroboration - but if they do that and charge John they will be expending a lot of resources on a case they are unlikely to win. It’s not at all uncommon for someone to confess and later plead “not guilty”.
Doreen hit the nail on the head. There are people who will confess to anything, true or not. DUI is almost always supported by BAC measurement. In cases where other intoxicants are suspected or no blood test was conducted, prosecution has to rely on impartial observation of impairment by trained police, and also put the driver behind the wheel. John Doe can say he was drunk, and Marla and the girls can say he was drunk, but that doesn’t mean he was drunk. Frankly, I think the statute of limitations factor is irrelevant. Even the next day, a confessing John Doe would not be prosecuted.
Now, for more serious crimes where there is other evidence, Mr. Doe might be looked at more closely. But there still has to be solid evidence of a crime, and evidence that ties Doe to the crime other than a confession.
I am officially confessing to the murder of the Lizard Men that have been secretly running the country. Do I go to jail now? Ok that takes it to an absurd level. How about if I confess to a murder but there is no body. No missing person report. No evidence that a murder occurred. Do I go to jail just because I said I did? Even when there is no evidence of a crime occurring?
There are two elements of DWI. Operation and impairment. You have a verbal assurance that he was driving and a 2 year old recollection that he was impaired. No proof of impairment. No SFST. No observations. No BAC reading. There is no evidence that there was a crime even with a confession.
It is the corpus delicti rule. I know that goes back to common law. A lawyer type will have to come in and explain how it is handled in Michigan.
The real-world question is whether any DA or equivalent is ever going to to anything, of course. And the answer is almost certainly “No” for both the DWI and murder cases, as presented.
But legally, if the DA and the defendant agree on a charge and a sentence, who’s gong to challenge whether a crime actually occurred? It probably has to get past a Grand Jury, but you know, ham sandwiches and all that.
No evidence will be suppressed because nobody is going to file a motion asking for it to be suppressed. No one will be asking for proof a crime occurred. No one will be challenging anything.
I know a Judge does need to approve the sentence, but I don’t think there’s any way for the Judge to – on her own without a motion from the defense – decide that there’s proof a crime occurred, or exclude evidence or anything.
A judge has the obligation to follow the law and an obligation to void any agreements that do not follow the law. If the defendant is acting pro se the judge looks closer at it.
Yes, IIRC, judges have been known to void agreements. (I recall the situation I read somewhere, the guy took a guilty plea even though he insisted he was innocent “just to get it over with”. He said as much to the judge, the judge refused to accept his guilty plea and ordered a trial. It happens, a judge can refuse to accept the guilty plea if he feels there is a problem.)
Suppose the judge and/or the DA believe, on the basis of the person’s emotional distress and guilty demeanor, that they’re telling the truth about the DUI? Or suppose they take a polygraph (I know, not admissible in court?)
Let me give you as close an example as I can find. I happen to have met the victim in this case because we had mutual friends. I am pretty familiar with the case. It was tragic. A young woman who happens to be a huge animal lover and donates a lot of her time to animals sees a wounded dog in the road. She gets out to help and is struck and killed by another driver. The driver stopped, got out of his vehicle, looked at what happened and left. He was found 3 days later and arrested. The prosecution was able to prove he was the operator so we have operation. He admitted he was driving. He admitted he struck the victim. He admitted to drinking prior to the accident. They know what bar he was in. They have witnesses that testified he was at the bar drinking. They have physical evidence he was at the bar.* Despite his admission to drinking prior to the accident they could not prove and charge him with DUI. * Because they had no way of proving impairment. So he was charged with leaving the scene of a fatal accident, failure to report an accident and careless driving and received the maximum sentence. He was not charged with DUI, assault or manslaughter, all because they had no way of proving impairment even with a confession. Her family is lobbying to get sentencing laws changed. He is currently up for parole for the second time.
That was with an accident that took the life of a 23 year old girl. A two year old case involving someone who felt guilty about being tipsy and getting home safe would not even be listened to.
If it’s a metropolitan area, he will told ‘Thank you, now go home.’
It’s not worth anyone’s time. If you are a DA, no one gives a hoot about your misdemeanor convictions, and one case isn’t really gonna move your stats anyway.
Worst case scenario, the guy agrees to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in exchange for no jail time, maybe some community service. The guy may feel relieved of guilt, everybody else will feel annoyed.