When is something considered a valid confession?
<p>When is something considered a confession to a crime? For example if someone murdered John Doe and I asked Bob if he did, and Bob said yes, if I had recorded the conversation would this be a confession?</p>

<p>Lying, misunderstanding, or joking isn't illegal. But then what is the point of police trying to get confessions from suspects? Does it depend on context, for example it's unlikely someone would joke about being a murder to a police officer?</p>

<p>What is needed to make a confession stand up in a court? Is lying, misunderstanding, or joking a valid defense? Would it be up to the defendant to prove that they were in fact lying , misunderstanding, or joking (if so how? it's rather subjective to say "yea I was making a bad joke when I said I shot him in the head" is a bad joke).</p>

<p>I use murder as just an example, what about assault?</p>

<p>There are two bars that such evidence would have to clear: admissability and believability. As established in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brown v. Mississippi</a>, the police cannot beat a confession out of you: any such statement cannot be entered as evidence. There are numerous procedural requirements on statements obtained by the police, such as the famous case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Miranda v. Arizona</a> which requires police to inform a person in custody of their relevant rights. Wire-tapping laws exist at the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-119" rel="nofollow noreferrer">federal level</a> as well as the state level – some state versions are more stringent, and such laws may make such a confession inadmissible in court. Also inadmissible is "<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/article_VIII" rel="nofollow noreferrer">heresay</a>"; there are various circumstances where it <em>is</em> allowed to introduce as evidence testimony like "I heard Bob say that Lou bragged about murdering Sal", and a concept of "adoptive admission" which has the consequence that if you don't protest an accusation or wrongdoing, that is the same as confessing to doing it (jurors still have to decide if they believe it, but it is admissible).</p>

<p>If a statement is admitted as evidence, then the jury has to decide whether they believe the statement. Assuming you are being tried by a jury, for the most part it depends on whether the jurors believe the statement. The basic premise is that anyone who makes a statement, especially to the police (and especially writes it down and signs it) has thought about the statement, understands it, and is telling the truth. It is not impossible to try to defend yourself by claiming that you didn't understand the statement you were signing, but that's an uphill battle.</p>

<p>Suppose on the one hand during an interrogation, the police ask "Have you seen Smith since Friday?" and you stupidly say "Yeah, I shot him on Monday. Of course not you idiot, I already told you, I haven't seen Smith for over a year". The first sentence taken out of context could be interpreted as an admission, but with the full context it's clear that it is not: it's a dangerous smart-mouthed childish outburst. But if you carefully write out details of the murder, the jury would very likely interpret the statement as true. (Actually, lying may be illegal, depending on who you are lying to: see <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001" rel="nofollow noreferrer">8 USC 1001</a>). Once the accused confesses to something, it is incumbent on him to prove that his statement cannot be believed.</p>

<p>There is no legal standard of what constitutes being believable, so to "help" jurors, the judge may read instructions along the following lines (Calcrim instructions, 2006 version)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You alone, must judge the credibility or believability of the
  witnesses. In deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, use
  your common sense and experience. You must judge the testimony of each
  witness by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice you
  may have. You may believe all, part, or none of any witness’s
  testimony. Consider the testimony of each witness and decide how much
  of it you believe. In evaluating a witness’s testimony, you may
  consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth
  or accuracy of that testimony. Among the factors that you may consider
  are:</p>
  
  <p>• How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the
  things about which the witness testified?</p>
  
  <p>• How well was the witness able to remember and describe what
  happened?</p>
  
  <p>• What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?</p>
  
  <p>• Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?</p>
  
  <p>• Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or
  prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case,
  or a personal interest in how the case is decided?</p>
  
  <p>• What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?</p>
  
  <p>• Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or
  inconsistent with his or her testimony?</p>
  
  <p>• How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other
  evidence in the case?</p>
  
  <p>• [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the
  witness testified?]</p>
  
  <p>• [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]</p>
  
  <p>• [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]</p>
  
  <p>• [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]</p>
  
  <p>• [Has the witness engaged in [other] conduct that reflects on his or
  her believability?]</p>
  
  <p>• [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his
  or her testimony?]</p>
  
  <p>Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies
  or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not.
  People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what
  they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or
  hear it differently. [If the evidence establishes that a witness’s
  character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who
  know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the
  witness’s character for truthfulness is good.] [If you do not believe
  a witness’s testimony that he or she no longer remembers something,
  that testimony is inconsistent with the witness’s earlier statement on
  that subject.] [If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about
  something significant in this case, you should consider not believing
  anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about
  some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept
  the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The shorter version is "use your common sense". The problem with this level of detail about what might influence a judgment of believability is that it encourages people to think that any factor <em>not</em> mentioned should not be considered (after all, the judge didn't say "or anything else that you think reasonably bears on believability").</p>

criminal-law evidence