It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Alleged Confession May Be Used In Trial (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Chai Soua Vang asked for an attorney prior and during his questioning by authorities investigating the death of six deer hunters in November 2004. Vang confessed to chasing the six hunters and shooting them in the back. The defense attempted to bar the confession based on the denied request for an attorney.
 



www.washingtonpost.com
HAYWARD, Wis. -- A judge ruled Wednesday prosecutors may use at trial the alleged confession of a man accused of killing six deer hunters during a November 2004 confrontation.

Vang's attorneys had asked the judge to bar prosecutors from using some of Vang's statements on grounds he requested an attorney before and during questioning and was denied one. The circumstances surrounding his statements were coercive and violated his constitutional rights, the defense contended.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Vang has pleaded not guilty despite his alleged confession. There will be no insanity plea and the supposed confession will be allowed. This brings up an interesting aspect of law and justice that has taken many forms.....when do discrepancies in police procedure have a valid impact on the ability to prosecute a man. One could reason that a confession made without an attorney is still a confession, but then you would have to consider the bias and potential stress of the investigators to make an arrest.

This could set up a not so fortunate precedent where investigators can deny suspects their civil rights, have thier cake and eat it too.




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I understand the legal questions here, but look at the specifics of this case and others like it.

Am I alone in feeling disgusted when a man confesses to murdering someone yet walks off scot free because of some technicality. Certain aspects of our legal system need to get the boot.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Here is the reason the alleged confession was allowed.


According to court records, a sheriff's investigator and an FBI agent read Vang his Miranda rights around 10:15 a.m. Nov. 22 in the Sawyer County Jail. The suspect initially declined to talk and requested to first talk with an attorney.

Fifteen minutes later, Vang told a jailer he had changed his mind. The investigator returned and had Vang sign a form indicating he wanted to talk. Vang also signed a form waiving his Miranda rights, according to authorities.

www.jsonline.com...


Court records showing the same thing only with slightly more detail

www.jsonline.com...



As you can see he changed his mind and signed a form waiving his rights, nothing precedent setting here at all, just a lawyer trying to get his client off.

[edit on 6/9/2005 by shots]



new topics
 
0

log in

join