Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (433522)	7/25/2003 2:48:08 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 769667

Orca, re:Post one credible link that shows this as an acceptable tactic in interrogation, or be gone If I post one will you go away?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (433522)	7/25/2003 2:55:19 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Orca, re:Post one credible link that shows this as an acceptable tactic in interrogation, or be gone. Here try this one: state.il.us When it is the defendant himself who begins bartering for leniency in exchange for a statement, a claim of coercion becomes far less credible. See Wright, 127 Ill. App. 3d at 751, 469 N.E.2d at 353-54. In Wright, the defendant, charged with murder, asked a detective whether his codefendant, D.C. Clark, was in custody. Upon learning he was, the defendant told the detective he would be willing to give a statement in exchange for a promise by the State not to seek the death penalty against him. When the State later agreed not to seek the death penalty, the defendant confessed to the murder. The trial court, finding "these so-called inducements were actually conditions originated and tendered by the defendant in return for which he was willing to give a truthful statement," concluded the defendant's confes- sion was entirely voluntary, and the appellate court in Wright affirmed. Wright, 127 Ill. App. 3d at 752, 469 N.E.2d at 354. Applying these principles to the present case, the trial court's finding of voluntariness is not to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Oaks, 169 Ill. 2d at 447, 662 N.E.2d at 1344 (standard of review is whether finding of voluntariness is contrary to the manifest weight of the evi- dence). All the evidence at trial established it was defendant who first expressed a willingness to make a statement, and it was he who set the conditions upon which such a statement would be made. Defendant does not contest the evidence on this point, specifically acknowledging in his brief "[t]here is no dispute that the [d]efendant indicated to Officer Garrett that if his girlfriend was not charged then he would talk to them." Garrett testified he released Brigham only after defendant made the above statement. Defendant initiated and controlled the bargaining here, so the cases upon which he relies, Ruegger and Shaw, are distinguishable.