StinkySardine

 

Note #1
(repeat of previous post, but bear it with me - you'll see why in note #2)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the interviews.

They will not be grilled!

They will be asked questions, they will answer the questions. The police will not show them any inonsistencies or present them with evidence. Unless inconsistencies ot their own testimonies are very big and the PJ finds it useful to given them a 'second try' for them to correct themselves.

It is up to the prosecutor to grill them in the trial session and show the judges all inconsistencies and to prove they are lying or just plain wrong.

That is why it is important to interview them BEFORE the defense has access to case files. Otherwise the arguidos could just see what's in the files and tell them.

It really doesn't matter if they have the chance to co-ordinate stories among themselves. That is actually VERY dangerous for them. If the prosecutor has physical evidence that clearly contradicts a statement and every witness (co-ordinated with the others) are caught with their pants on their hands... ALL will be liable for perjury!

Note # 2

Ulike what has been said throughout the 3A lately, it is not what the witnesses say in the interviews that count.

ALL proof is made in court!

The investigation, interviews, evidence, reports are indications that someone committed a crime. The system analyses those indications and decides if they are strong enough to go to trial.

Up to the trial - nothing is proved!!

All proof is done at the trial session.

So it is perfectly possible that a witness says A in the police interview and B in court. And unless there is evidence that B is not actually B (physical or testimonial) than B is what it is. Of course the witness might still get into legal trouble...

More: the arguido himself can say A at the police investigation and then refuse to talk at the trial. Let's suppose a confession at the investigation phase. The arguido A confesses to the police that he killed someone. The police CANNOT rest its case. Why? Because if he then decides to exercise his right of silence at court, than other evidence has to be used at the trial to prove he killed someone.

That is why even with confessions in the investigation phase, the investigation does not stop. When crimes are committed and all the police has is the confession of the arguido, all the defense lawyer has to do is tell him to shut up. HE WILL NOT BE CONVICTED.

What's the point here?

1) Testimonial evidence is the weakest link of proof
2) That includes declarations by the arguido - even when confessing. The PT system assumes that there might be a full load of reason for a person to confess to something she didn't do
3) All proof is done at the trial session - NOT AT THE INVESTIGATION PHASE!

It might sound a bit confusing but makes perfect logic, actually.

StinkySardine
Previous statements are not completely ignored. One thing is not considering them, the other is their legal weight. I'm obviously not aware of the details of that particular trial. For example, if during investigations he confessed, but during the trial he denied, then it is up to the prosecution (with other evidence) to prove it's case . Fortunately, the police knoews exactly how things work and do not stop the investigation with the confession. It could happen, for example, that he lied during the investigation to protect his sister and then changed his mind. In this particular case it was further complicated because there are 2 arguidos, which - more often than not - end up trying to blame each other.

The investigation phase statements are not fully ignored. It is what he says in trial that is 'official' in terms of evidence build-up. The prosecution does not have to actually prove he's lying. They just have to prove he committed the crime (which as you know, most of the time is helped by actually proving he's lying). This system ensures that that proof does not rely exclusively on a confession at the investigation phase.

However, when confessing in court, it is taken as fact. There are two kinds of confession. Total confession where the arguido admits to everything and he admits that EVERY allegation of the prosecution is true - the trial goes directly to the final alegations. Partial confessions, where the prosecutor still has to prove all other alegations not admitted by the arguido

Also be aware that during trial, the arguido can make as many statements as he wants at anytime! All those statements must be recorded and taken into consideration by the jusdges.