Acquiring Admissible Statements

(People v. Yeager, 194 Cal. 452, 482 [229 P. 40].)

In the presence of another individual a statement is produced, accusing another individual with committing a criminal act or an act constituting an element or part of a crime. The individual remains silent or has an equivocal response; thus, conditions normal with an innocent individual would quickly deny any accusations assumed by an accuser as guilt or admittance of guilt. However, both the accusatory statement and the response or silence may then be admittance in court as evidence tending on proving either acquiescence of truth or consciousness of guilt in the accusatorial statement. A jury has the allowance to infer from silence or equivocation that a person has adopted an accusation as the truth and therefore admitting the guilt.

For the statement to be properly admissible as evidence in court certain conditions are a requirement. A requirement is that the normal innocent individual would deny any accusation of an act. Therefore, evidence of the statement or silence of the accusatorial person is left open for a trial judge to decide guilt or innocence. Many jurisdictions arrest the individual when the accusation is made because the silence or equivocal response is enough evidence to make inadmissible evidence toward the person whether innocent or guilty. The innocent is competent in deciding when is safe to remain silent although under arrest, as with those who are guilty. California appellate courts seem to have no limit set on the admissibility of accusatorial statements made to another while under arrest; even if that person has no response or an equivocal response.

Reference

Barrett, D. (n.d.). Evidence: Admissibility of Accusatory Statements as Adoptive Admissions When Defendant is under Arrest. California Law Review. Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1947), pp. 128-131. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3477385

...