Can you convict a DUI suspect on his Drunken testimony? - GoFuckYourself.com

sortie · 10-24-2009, 08:55 AM

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.

sortie · 10-24-2009, 11:14 AM

BTW : This is from a true case.

So I know what the outcome was.

fatfoo · 10-24-2009, 03:17 PM

I don't know what the laws are.

But, I think that, first of all, you cannot figure out whether someone is drunk or not just by listening to his speech. Can you tell someone is drunk when he is talking? He could be mentally retarded, or maybe he has some speech defect.

Anyway, the only way to prove someone is drunk is to do that breathalizer test, or other tests that can reasonably determine he/she is drunk.

kane · 10-24-2009, 03:51 PM

I would assume that any decent attorney would get his statement thrown out and not have it allowed in court. He would argue that because he was drunk he didn't understand what he was saying or doing, In the case of a car wreck you still have the wrecked car as evidence, but if there were no witnesses it might be hard to prove this guy did it even with his taped confession.

That is to say if he decides to fight it.

sortie · 10-24-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I would assume that any decent attorney would get his statement thrown out and not have it allowed in court. He would argue that because he was drunk he didn't understand what he was saying or doing, In the case of a car wreck you still have the wrecked car as evidence, but if there were no witnesses it might be hard to prove this guy did it even with his taped confession.

That is to say if he decides to fight it.

My take on that is that because the video tape was evidence of the sobriety test it can't
be ruled out of evidence so the jury will hear the statements made at that time.
So it's up to the jury as to how much the statements mean.

The jury saw the entire video tape in this case.

kane · 10-24-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

My take on that is that because the video tape was evidence of the sobriety test it can't
be ruled out of evidence so the jury will hear the statements made at that time.
So it's up to the jury as to how much the statements mean.

The jury saw the entire video tape in this case.

I think a lot depends on how they got the video tape. If he gave it to them or it was in the car or something it would be easy to use it as evidence. If it was given to them by someone else or they searched his house and got it, he might have been able to fight it.

Either way, IMO, anyone who drives drunk deserves any and all punishment they get and then some.

PornMD · 10-25-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatfoo

I don't know what the laws are.

But, I think that, first of all, you cannot figure out whether someone is drunk or not just by listening to his speech. Can you tell someone is drunk when he is talking? He could be mentally retarded, or maybe he has some speech defect.

Cop #2: "What do you think - is he drunk?"
Cop #1: "No, he's just teencat."

sortie · 10-25-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I think a lot depends on how they got the video tape. If he gave it to them or it was in the car or something it would be easy to use it as evidence. If it was given to them by someone else or they searched his house and got it, he might have been able to fight it.

Either way, IMO, anyone who drives drunk deserves any and all punishment they get and then some.

It was police video from the dash cam so the only issue was if the content on the
tape was allowed. The judge cannot rule out the tape because it has the sobriety
test on it.

kane · 10-25-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

It was police video from the dash cam so the only issue was if the content on the
tape was allowed. The judge cannot rule out the tape because it has the sobriety
test on it.

yep, that changes a lot of stuff. If the police shot the video there would be almost no chance of it getting thrown out.

10-25-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PornMD

Cop #2: "What do you think - is he drunk?"
Cop #1: "No, he's just teencat."

View Poll Results: Should a drunken admission alone under questioning by a cop be used to convict.
No	3	42.86%
Yes, 100%	1	14.29%
Yes, but only with corroborating evidence.	3	42.86%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

10-24-2009, 03:17 PM	#3
fatfoo ICQ:649699063 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 27,763	I don't know what the laws are. But, I think that, first of all, you cannot figure out whether someone is drunk or not just by listening to his speech. Can you tell someone is drunk when he is talking? He could be mentally retarded, or maybe he has some speech defect. Anyway, the only way to prove someone is drunk is to do that breathalizer test, or other tests that can reasonably determine he/she is drunk. __________________ Send me an email: [email protected]

10-24-2009, 08:55 AM	#1
sortie Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7,771	Can you convict a DUI suspect on his Drunken testimony? 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. __________________

10-24-2009, 11:14 AM	#2
sortie Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7,771	BTW : This is from a true case. So I know what the outcome was. __________________

10-24-2009, 03:51 PM	#4
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	I would assume that any decent attorney would get his statement thrown out and not have it allowed in court. He would argue that because he was drunk he didn't understand what he was saying or doing, In the case of a car wreck you still have the wrecked car as evidence, but if there were no witnesses it might be hard to prove this guy did it even with his taped confession. That is to say if he decides to fight it.