But seriously, if video taped eye witness testimony from a drunk man was entered into
evidence to convict another party I would require corroboration of those statements
because I believe drunken statements in themselves are unreliable.
I'm not going to convict you on the word of a drunk man alone!
Sooooooooo.................
Do I change my opinion on drunken testimony when the video tape is of the drunk
suspect claiming he is at fault? It's drunken testimony for sure right?
I mean, if the drunk guy says "I drove the car when it wrecked" and he
is falling down drunk do I need corroborating evidence/testimony to deem his
admission as reliable truth?
More basically, should a drunken admission of guilt under questioning by a cop be used as
the only evidence proving guilt to get a conviction?
I don't know.