Supreme Court grapples with use of confession in joint trial
1 year, 11 months ago

Supreme Court grapples with use of confession in joint trial

The Independent  

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails Sign up to our free breaking news emails SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. The justices heard 90 minutes of lively arguments about a situation that sometimes arises in criminal trials with more than one defendant, when one person's confession might also implicate someone else on trial. One of the men confessed to his role and Samia's lawyer, Kannon Shanmugam, said the confession unfairly implicated Samia as the trigger man, in violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has previously imposed limits on the use of a confession in these circumstances, including that the defendant’s name has to be removed and can't simply be replaced with the notation “redacted.” In Samia's trial, he was described in the confession as “someone” and “the other person.” Not good enough, Shanmugam said. The Justice Department said enough other evidence ties Samia to the crime that the court should leave his conviction in place, even if it finds the confession should not have been used.

Justice Supreme Court Trial Court States Flynn Confession Shanmugam Samia  samia  joint  grapples  states  justice  defendants  trial  supreme  sign  breaking  samias  confession  court

History of this topic

Confession Of Accused Can't Be Proved Under S.27 Evidence Act, Only Statements Relating To Discovery Of Facts Admissible: Supreme Court
4 months ago

Confession Of Accused Can't Be Proved Under S.27 Evidence Act, Only Statements Relating To Discovery Of Facts Admissible: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the specific portion of the statement of the accused which is directly linked to the discovery/recovery of evidence is admissible, and that the confession of the accused cannot be incorporated while proving a statement under Section 27. The learned Trial Judge has completely lost sight of Sections …

[TADA] Confession Of Co-accused Inadmissible Against Another Accused If They Were Tried Separately: SC [Read Judgment]
4 years, 11 months ago

[TADA] Confession Of Co-accused Inadmissible Against Another Accused If They Were Tried Separately: SC [Read Judgment]

Live Law  

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on Wednesday, made some important observations regarding admissibility of confessions under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987. The bench comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta, with regard to scope of Section 15, held that if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a. The …

Discover Related