Defendant Police Statements

[pedro888]

When are defendant police interview statements used in court, in a joint trial if the co accused gave statements clearing another defandant, how is this played out in court, are defandant statements evidence? what if the co accused pleads guilty before the trial how does that leave the defendant standing trial?

[fredpuli47]

In a joint trial the statements of both are read out. The evidential value is that a defendant's statement is part of the evidence in the case of that defendant.. It gives what his response was, which may be illuminating if he fights the case and gives evidence.Prosecuting counsel and counsel for the other defendant may find it worthwhile to find out from him why he said it. It is not, in itself, evidence to prove the other defendant's innocence. It is if the first defendant gives evidence that what he said in it is true, because then he's saying that under oath or affirmation, as a witness.

If the first defendant pleads guilty at the outset , only the evidence relevant and admissible against the second defendant is adduced. What the first said about the second in his own statement is inadmissible hearsay in the second's trial.The second can always call the first as a witness in his own trial. Even then his counsel can't lead his own witness by showing him the statement and asking whether it's true.He has to invite the first to give his account of events, without prompting him by questions that suggest the desired answer ['leading questions'] . However, prosecuting counsel is not so restrained. He may well put the statement to the witness either to show inconsistencies between it and what the witness has just said in evidence, or in the course of discovering exactly why the first was so keen exonerate the second.It's not always wise to call the co-defendant like that.All his previous convictions are likely to be put before the jury and juries are rather cynical about the 'honour among thieves' argument which you are then putting forward ! They often make terrible witnesses, anyway, convictions or not.

[pedro888]

Thanks Fred , joint enterprise again, both statements tally with the sequence of events including the main player confirming the other defendant was not party to his actions he just lost self control etc, it looks good on paper pre trial for the co accused, so how can that be used in defence of the co accused on the basis of both pleading not guilty.

If the main player pleads guilty leaving the other on his own surely that statement is good evidence of a non joint venture, seems unfair to me on the co accused if that is wiped out, surely a jury would need to know more of the main players actions state of mind,,,,, Pedro

[pedro888]

Fred , do the jury get hard copies of the statements, whilst not evidence to clear the co accused it surely would influence them? t

[fredpuli47]

Put it the other way, pedro. If A pleads guilty, never gives evidence, and has told the police in a statement that B is guilty too, do you think the prosecution should be allowed to read out A's statement as proof that B is guilty? No, I thought not ! If not, by what logic should it be evidence the other way, if A happens to have said that B is innocent?

If you wanted to have A prove B is innocent (or guilty ) you'd have to call A as a witness to say so, so that the jury can see A in person giving evidence on oath and see his evidence tested in cross-examination before them.They might think he's a shocking liar, whatever he says is the truth, or they might believe every word (or anything in between). Clients, as B, being cross-examined do sometimes blurt out 'Ask A, he'll tell you!' . Unwise. The judge will tell them to ignore that. Prosecuting counsel may be quick to enquire where A is. "He's alive and well, isn't he, as you well know ? In fact you know exactly where he is now !." Not only will the jury be told the law of evidence but, being told it, they'll then be asking "If A would say that, why haven't the defence called him before us so we can hear him say it? B must be lying to us or wrong about what A would say if he were called and asked!"

If both plead not guilty their statements to police about the other are still not evidence for or against that other. If they give evidence, then they can be asked about the truth or otherwise of what they've said about the other, as explained above. .

[pedro888]

yeh fair point a Fred, best not to call them and defend on the basis of the evidence, how would you defend B if he did not distant himself from A by say robbery after A had done the fatal deed all shown say on cctv, what can a Barrister say on behalf of his defendant ?

[pedro888]

Fred for give me for being dim, but surely a member of the jury would be influenced in some way if both the defendants statements were read in court tying up with the prosecution evidence even if the statements related to each other good or bad!

having read your first post today a police statement if for your case only to either say no more or stand in the dock and add more after it has been read in court, is my understanding correct?

Thanks Pedro

[fredpuli47]

If one accused has mentioned his co-accused in interview or statement that isn't evidence for or against the co-accused.Only what he says on oath in the witness box is evidence for or against the co-accused The judge , in summing up, has to direct the jury on what is, and what is not, evidence. The judge may do so during the evidence, too.The judge will make a special point of directing them about what one defendant says about the other

The Court of Appeal is aware of the risk that jurors, in spite of that, may be swayed in a joint trial by some previous statement by one defendant X incriminating co-defendant Y . It has recommended that judges advise the jury to consider the cases against Y first before the case against X . That way the jury should focus only on what is the evidence against Y and may decide his case first without making misuse of inadmissible material in X's statement..[in R v Hickey and Robinson, 1997]

[pedro888]

Thanks again Fred excellent, could the pros go for seperate trials? If the jury considers Y's case first on a joint trial and the next defendant X gives evidence which will include naming Y in his actions, then I take it Y's defence as you have previously stated could cross examine him re his initial police statements, Pedro

[fredpuli47]

When the Court of Appeal advised judges to invite the jury to consider the second defendant first, they meant that they should do so whatever order the defendants appear on the indictment. What order they appear in is a matter for whoever drafts the indictment.. It's customary to list the names in order of severity of involvement, the principal offender being named first. Everything in the trial follows the order in the indictment, the first named cross-eaminig first, giving his evidence first and so on.

The prosecution wouldn't want separate trials in the case you give. There'll be joint trials whenever there's joint enterprise or the crimes alleged are part of the same or a series of related incidents. The Defence sometimes apply for separate trials , generally where they argue that their man is entirely peripheral to the main events and could be prejudiced by being tried at the same time, in the same case, as major parties.

Where one defendant gives evidence he may be cross-examined by counsel for any c0- defendant and any previous statement he has made incriminating their client will be put to him and challenged as to its truth.