It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Good question--in this case, I don't see how, but in general, while a confession is the strongest proof known to the law, there still is sometimes doubt on behalf of a prosecutor or a judge as to the truth of the confession.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loam
The no charge is based on lack of evidence linking his punching the child and the death of the child. If an medical examiner cannot find external injuries that would support the theory his punch is why the child died it cant go to trial. The PA would not be able to argue his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
He confessed to punching the child. He did not confess to killing the child.
Crappy I know but thats how it works.
I would hope that I would have more constraint, and I tell myself that I would every time that I read a story like this, but I'm uncertain that, if that were my child, the guy who punched my child would be breathing by the time the officers wanted to question him.
On the flip side if he is charged and the state fails to secure a conviction he cant be charged again. If at some point new medical evidence does link him then they can file. Why risk a jeopardy attachment on a case you cant prove?