Well, in Canada, #3 wouldn’t happen. We don’t have felony murder - was struck down as unconstitutional, contrary to our equivalent of due process.
Perhaps both of them would be convicted for the same crime:
Except when they’ve instead stated “We known that you stabbed her six times in the kitchen with a Mozzbi brand serrated steak knife and then threw it out as you were leaving the house. So, why don’t you just admit to it, and we’ll be done with it.” And then mention this precise knowledge of the circumstances of the crime as an evidence of guilt, as basically happened many times to people falsely convicted.
You watch too many TV crime dramas. All police interrogations are watch through a two way mirror and are videotaped. The police do not go into details like your example.
Of course, people can later claim they did, and try to get out of prison by doing so. Does not work…
This is likely the case I was refeeeing to earlier in this thread.
But the OP has been answered long ago. What happens in these cases is whatever the prosecutors decide they can get away with. They can randomly choose one to prosecute, or try to nail both of the suspects. There’s no blanket principle that dictates what will happen.
“All” is a pretty sweeping generalization here, when there are thousands of police departments just in the U.S., covered by fifty different state laws/constitutions/judicial decisions. I’m not aware of any jurisdiction that absolutely requires interrogations to be taped. Some departments do, to their credit, have policies that interrogations are videotaped, but certainly not all. And, even where there is tape, I think there’s been enough experience with police bodycams for us to understand the limits of recordings that are under the control of the police.
So I don’t think ‘all’ is very accurate here.
FWIW, in 6 years as a prosecutor and now 17+ as a magistrate, I’ve never seen, read or heard of a case like the OP’s. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it would be vanishingly rare.
In the U.S., they don’t even have to be under oath. Statements made to anyone by a criminal defendant are not hearsay and may typically be introduced in court as statements by a party opponent. See Fed.Evid.R. 801(d)(2) and its state equivalents: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801
It’s more common than you might think (and then-State Sen. Barack Obama was instrumental in getting the law passed in Illinois):
“To date, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation regarding the recording of custodial interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Approximately 1000 jurisdictions have voluntarily implemented recording policies.”
From here: False Confessions - Innocence Project
Here it’s called ‘joint enterprise’ , and the Craig/Bentley case rested primarily on it.
Actually, that’s precisely what happens in Japan on occasion.
Another technique is for the police to ask questions and then when the suspect gives an answer that doesn’t match the evidence, they will tell the suspect that no, you couldn’t have done it that way, and allow the person to make another guess.
Japanese laws are less protective of suspects’ rights and are a good example of why such laws are necessary.
But… assuming the two confessions/cases cannot be tied together as a joint enterprise or conspiracy, I’m going to guess that they will try the most likely case first. It’s kind of counter-productive to the case to have a defense attorney dredge up - “wait, you’ve charged another person for the same crime while claiming that they acted alone.”
Or is the defence forbidden from introducing some other indictments, statements, confessions by other persons into a court case?
Plus, if the second person is also convicted, the first one should have a case to appeal his conviction. Is there a presumption that the most recent court decision is the more correct(?) one?
Yes, that might harm the prosecution’s case, but it is up to the judge to decide whether it will kill it.
No, there’s no such prohibition.
Yes, one or both might try to appeal, but generally appeals are restricted to errors of law. It’s not guaranteed that you can appeal based on the argument that “the result in that case makes it logically impossible for me to be guilty in this case.” It depends on the jurisprudence in the particular state’s law and whether the appeals courts decide to intervene.
No, there is no such presumption.
Bottom line, it is entirely possible for both defendants to be convicted and sentenced and serve time regardless of the fact there is no actual way for them both to have actually done it. There’s no general rule that the result in two cases mist be logically compatible with each other.
It’s not uncommon for multiple people to confess to the same murder. Some people be crazy. They just investigate to see who’s lying.
It seems to me that is the very definition of an error in law.
Another equal court has decided the facts are different. that’s often what gets appeals heard, is it not?
If nothing else, it brings the reputation of the law into disrepute.
An error in fact is not an error in law.
An error in law is an error in formulating or applying a legal rule.
No, this is not a common basis for appeal.
Another equal court’s finding of fact may very well be different. But you don’t automatically get an appeal on that basis.
And when going to an appeals court, they will rarely question the lower court’s finding of fact. They will generally only review error of law—that is, a statement of what the law is and how to apply it to facts.
Depends on the appellate jurisdiction. Criminal appeals in Canada aren’t limited to errors of law. An accused can appeal against conviction on the basis that it is not supportable on the evidence.
In U.S. courts, defendants frequently make such an appeal, but it’s one that they should generally expect to lose.
Put them both under anesthesia then tickle their feet until one of them tells the truth! This works every time.
I hear that’s a common approach in Grand Fenwick.