There’s been a thread kicking around for a while on the subject of whether it’s right or proper, or even allowed, for juries to nullify.
This is sort of tangential to that, but maybe related: If you were on a jury, would you believe any confession maybe by a defendant during an interrogation?
Question: How are such confessions presented to the jury? Does the jury see or hear an audio or video recording of the entire interrogation? Does the jury only hear what the interrogator says the suspect said?
I’ve never been involved in a court case, neither as litigant, nor as witness, nor as juror. My impression is that, when a suspect confesses, he is presented with a ghost-written confession to sign, built on what the interrogators have gotten him to say. I presume this is presented to the jury. Is this generally correct?
If you were on a jury, would you give any credence to such a confession? What would make you convict based on such a confession? What would make you choose to ignore the confession?
My general feeling is, I want to hear the defendant take the stand and confess with his own mouth, in court, in front of the jury. If his confession is true and he meant to confess, then he’s going to be willing to take the stand and repeat his confession in court, right? Right? Or, alternatively, he takes the stand and renounces his confession, saying it was coerced. Then what would you, as juror, believe?
Or, most often, the defendant never takes the stand, thereby preserving his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, but at the same time, forfeiting any opportunity to take the stand and renounce the confession. So the prosecutor presents a confession and it stands unchallenged. Then what would you, as juror, believe?
My general attitude would be to ignore confessions. If the prosecutor has a case, he needs to make his case with other evidence and testimony.
What do you all think?