Tuesday, October 25, 2005
DUI Conviction Tossed Despite Confession - Tampa DUI from SPTimes
Columns: A principle should tip the scales of justice: "The point of requiring a corpus delicti is that a confession, by itself, is not enough to prove that a crime occurred. Otherwise, crazy people could confess to anything. Cops and prosecutors wouldn't need to worry about gathering evidence.
To quote the Florida Supreme Court in a landmark 1976 case:
The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication.
In this case, to prove the DUI-serious-injury charge, there had to be some independent proof that Esler was in fact drunk and driving the car that hit Jim. That evidence did not exist. The case boiled down to (1) Jim saying somebody in a white car hit him and (2) Tina saying she had been driving a white car in the area.
The appeals court reversed her conviction."
To quote the Florida Supreme Court in a landmark 1976 case:
The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication.
In this case, to prove the DUI-serious-injury charge, there had to be some independent proof that Esler was in fact drunk and driving the car that hit Jim. That evidence did not exist. The case boiled down to (1) Jim saying somebody in a white car hit him and (2) Tina saying she had been driving a white car in the area.
The appeals court reversed her conviction."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
