Ch 6 Case Study: Piano Guy

Chapter 6: Case Study – A Piano Guy
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Chapter 6: Case Study – A Piano Guy
Jon Doreme was not originally arrested for theft. Will his confession about the piano be inadmissible? Why or why not? What specific requirement about confessions applies here?
The legal admissibility of Jon Doreme’s confessions about a piano appeared to be plausible. When Doreme confessed that he stole the piano, his admission remained admissible despite his physical and mental state. According to Mbuli (1993), “The stern requirements for the acceptability of confessions should also consider the permissibility of admissions and acquittal testimonials (p. 1). In fact, the courts of law admitted versions of confessions and admissions as appropriate components in law enforcement since these elements helped resolve numerous criminal cases. As long as the police officers interrogated the suspect correctly and presumed the innocence of the suspects until ascertained guilty, as long as the justice of the peace or the judge documented and verified the confession, and as long as the admissibility of the confession challenged and passed the court trials, then the confessions of the suspects remained legally admissible. In only needed further pieces of evidence to corroborate the confessions of the suspect.
Jon Doreme was intoxicated when he was questioned, or he would never have confessed to stealing the piano. Would his confession be admissible?
Once more, the legal admissibility of confession seemed vital to the case as long as it met the legal requirements (Mbuli, 1993).

Since the acts of confessions helped succeed criminal cases on several occasions, the courts of law should consider and admit Jon Doreme’s confessions despite his mental and physical state. Granting Jon Doreme told lies, the police officers and the investigating parties should call further witnesses from the scene of the crimes and related incidences to substantiate his confessions or personal testimonies.
When deciding to admit a confession, what is the standard of proof the government must meet? Will the government be able to establish this standard in this situation? Explain.
Upon the decision to admit a confession, the government should hold legal standards to accept pieces of evidence especially testimonial evidence maintained by the intoxicated suspects. The government should have a standard of proof to establish legal canons to lawfully acknowledge the concessions. Based on the pattern of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), the physical and the mental state of the drivers or suspects did not prevent them and their confessions and testimonies from being permissible in court. Although it could affect the weight of evidence based on their testimony, the courts of law and the government leaders should accept confessions legally requiring solid and substantiated pieces of evidence.

References
Mbuli, R. J. (1993). Admissibility of confessions in criminal trials. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from http://uzspace.uzulu.ac.za/handle/10530/269