skip navigation
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Login | Subscribe/Register | Manage Account | Shopping Cartshopping cart icon | Help | Contact Us | Home     
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
  Advanced Search
Search Help
     
| | | | |
place holder
Administered by the Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service National Criminal Justice Reference Service Office of Justice Programs Seal National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Topics
A-Z Topics
Corrections
Courts
Crime
Crime Prevention
Drugs
Justice System
Juvenile Justice
Law Enforcement
Victims
Left Nav Bottom Line
Home / NCJRS Abstract

Publications
 

NCJRS Abstract


The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 062394  
Title: ADMISSIBILITY OF ANSWERS TO POLICE QUESTIONING IN SCOTLAND (FROM RESHAPING THE CRIMINAL LAW, 1978, BY P R GLAZEBROOK - SEE NCJ-62387)
Author(s): G H GORDON
Corporate Author: Stevens and Sons
United Kingdom
Publication Date: 1978
Pages: 27
Type: Studies/research reports
Origin: United Kingdom
Language: English
Annotation: THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM POLICE QUESTIONING IN SCOTLAND IS EXAMINED USING CASE LAW.
Abstract: THE CHALMERS DECISION (1954) RIGIDLY HOLDS THAT ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM POLICE QUESTIONING OF A PERSON UNDER SERIOUS SUSPICION OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME IS INADMISSIBLE. ONLY VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS FROM THE ACCUSED, MADE WITHOUT PROBING POLICE QUESTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE. SCOTTISH LAW, HOWEVER, HAS NOT GENERALLY APPROACHED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE FROM A DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS SO RIGIDLY. 'OPPRESSION' OR 'UNFAIRNESS' IN POLICE BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATED WITH INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY GROUND FOR EVIDENCE EXCLUSION IN SCOTTISH LEGAL TRADITION. THE MURPHY CASE (1975) DECISION SERVED TO BYPASS THE ATYPICAL APPROACH OF CHALMERS AND RETURNED TO THE MORE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE BASED IN GRACIE V. STUART (1884), WHERE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE SO LONG AS THERE IS NO INDICATION SUCH STATEMENTS WERE OBTAINED BY UNREASONABLE POLICE ACTIONS, THREATS, OR PRESSURE. THERE IS STILL SOME CONCERN, HOWEVER, IN LEAVING THE MATTER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE OR JURY REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF POLICE METHODS USED TO OBTAIN STATEMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANT. IN THE ABSENCE OF TAPE RECORDINGS OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS, THE PROBLEM IS TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF A BATTERY OF POLICE OFFICERS. PERHAPS MORE RULES SHOULD BE USED TO REQULATE POLICE BEHAVIOR VIS-A-VIS SUSPECT QUESTIONING. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Case studies ; Rules of evidence ; Confessions ; Judicial decisions/ ; Suspect interrogation ; Scotland
 
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=62394

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.


Contact Us | Feedback | Site Map
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy Statement | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | USA.gov

U.S. Department of Justice | Office of Justice Programs | Office of National Drug Control Policy

place holder