Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
11. The woman's contention is
On appeal, the woman contends her conviction should be reversed because of the admission into evidence of the man's confession.
The woman and man were tried together. The prosecutor offered both confessions into evidence. The woman and man objected. After a hearing, the trial judge found that both confessions were voluntary and admitted both into evidence. The woman testified at trial, and the man did not. She claimed that her confession was false and the result of coercion. Both defendants were convicted.
A woman and man were charged with murder. Each gave a confession to the police that implicated both of them. The woman later retracted her confession claiming that it was coerced.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. The man's confession was inadmissible against the woman because she did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the man about his confession. Unless the man testifies and the woman is given the opportunity to confront him with the substance of his confession, using it against her would violate the Confrontation Clause. Even though the two defendants were tried together and the man was present at the trial, he did not testify and cannot be forced to testify because that would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. But his invocation of his right not to testify rendered his confession against the woman inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause.
B is incorrect. The issue of whether the man testified goes directly to whether the woman's rights were violated under the Confrontation Clause. The rule is that the use of a non-testifying co-defendant's confession against the accused presumably violates her constitutional rights. The fact that he did not testify renders his confession inadmissible.
C is incorrect. As explained above, the fact that the co-defendant did not testify is relevant to the woman's constitutional right to confront the evidence used against her. By contrast, her testimony on her own behalf is irrelevant to the rule that it is presumably unconstitutional to use a non-testifying co-defendant's confession against an accused at trial. Therefore, the woman's decision to testify on her own behalf does not preclude the constitutional violation.
D is incorrect. The fact that the woman's confession was properly admitted has no bearing on the admissibility of a co-defendant's confession, which was used against her in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The prejudicial effect of the man's confession, without the woman's opportunity to cross-examine him regarding the substance of it, should have made the man's confession inadmissible against the woman. If the woman isn't able to cross-examine the man, then admitting the man's confession is a violation of the woman's constitutional right to confront witnesses against her.