Dr Flemming confessed under the pressure, but, would that be enough proof on an American court? In this case the accomplice will talk, but were it not that the case, would it be enough, a confession said to a police officer under the pressure?
share"In real life"?
Flemming never confessed once in so many words, nor buckled under the pressure. He always spoke hypothetically and was very careful in all his responses making it impossible for Columbo to make an arrest (or at least get a conviction) as he had no evidence only his suspicion, which would never hold up in court, especially given Flemming's cleverly contrived alibi which had not been disproved. Columbo could not have made an arrest and certainly not gotten confession without the involvement of Miss Hudson. As he says, she's the weak link and he will use her to get to him (Ray). To get her to confess he must act on an instinct and prove to her what kind of a man the Dr. really is.
What if everyone started telling the truth?
Thanks for your answer, nothingwillstopit.
I was wondering, - not about this case in particular, but in Columbo's method - whether a confession gotten like this would be enough to send somebody to jail. All in all, what prevents the culprit to back down on his/her statement later on in court? And that's why I asked about what happens in real life. Wouldn't a lawyer find it wasy to get a non-guilty verdict in front of the jury, based on the lack of hard evidence? If the person retracts later on, there are never many pieces of evidence to make a conviction.
There was no confession. The suspect was only discussing a hypothetical. So, it could not be submitted as a straight confession.
Whether it could be entered into evidence at all is an interesting legal question. On it's own, the statement, if allowed in court, would unlikely be enough to send someone to jail. It could be presented in court in some circumstances, to be used for the jury to consider along with other evidence.
To get this evidence in, the witness would either have to be the defendant or the cop.
If the witness is the defendant, he would have to waive his 5th amendment rights and take the stand.
The first issue is whether the statements regarding the hypothetical are hearsay and therefore inadmissible in court. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter it purports to be. Many people don't realize this, but hearsay can be a statement uttered by the witness on the stand at a time before he was on the stand. So lawyers ask witnesses what they saw, did, etc., not what they said at the time.
(There are several exceptions to this rule, one is a dying declaration, for example. When a person is dying, on the side of the road, for example, and utters, "I killed George." The person hearing that would not normally be able to testify to what he heard in court. He would, in this instance, however, because the speaker of the hearsay was dying and the law realizes that if someone is using their last breaths to make a claim against his interest and clear his breast, it probative value is much higher than the risk that the statement is false. (Of course, evidence can be presented to prove that the statement was indeed false, but the point is, the statement is allowed to be considered as evidence where it normally would not due to hearsay.)
These statements in the movie might be allowed in as an exception to hearsay, being a statement against interest, but as I said before, these statements are hypotheticals so arguably not a statement against interest. Although, a judge might determine that the jury could hear it and decide for themselves whether these were admissions or not.
However, I am sure the defense lawyer would argue that the conversation was unfairly prejudicial, vs probative value, to have the jury even consider it. Evidence that might otherwise be included in a trial can be excluded if the risk for unfair prejudice of the evidence against the defendant outweighs the probative value that it offers.
The prosecution might want to get this information in by arguing that it is not offered for the truth it purports to be--which would take it out of the hearsay category. Let's say that the DA wanted to use this so said that the defendant was squirrely with the cops and refused to answer any straight questions in his wife's death, not trying to help the case, but would answer hypotheticals, and this convo expressly. It would plant the seed in the jury's mind that DF described himself as the likely murderer, but they would be given the evidence with the instruction to only consider it as an example of how the defendant wouldn't talk about the case directly and how uncooperative he was. Just an example. Again, the defense would say this hypothetical is unfairly prejudicial to be evidence. The judge would decide.
I hope that answers your questions.
Thanks a lot!
A very thorough explanation.
The confession won't stick, but Columbo convinced Katherine (Joan Hudson) to testify against him.
She'll take a plea and possibly do some time herself.
Her confession should be enough to send him to Alcatraz for life!
(oh that closed in 1963, never mind!)