Generally, a defendant's or witness's out of court statements are not admissible to prove their truth in court. This is the hearsay rule. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, however, including an adoptive admission.
An adoptive admission is generally where the defendant, knowing the content of an accusation against him, adopts the truth of the accusation by his words or conduct.
This often comes up when the police plant someone in a jail cell with or next to the suspect. The cellmate will ask the suspect questions about the crime. The suspect may simply agree with the cellmate or may boast about his crimes.
For example, let's say the defendant makes a statement, "Yeah, man, that guy didn't know who he was messing with." That statement is admissible by itslef as an admission. But it becomes much more powerful as an adoptive admission when it is coupled with the cellmate's question, "You shot the guy because of the way he looked at you?"
Sometimes a defendant can adopt an accusation by his silence. If someone is accused of a crime under circumstances where he could hear, understand, and reply to the accusation, and he does not respond, both the accusation and his response (or lack thereof) may be admitted in court. The prosecutor can argue from this that the defendant admitted the crime.
Similarly, if the defendant responds to an accusation in a way that is evasive or equivocal, that can be admitted in court.
The factors to look for to determine if silence can be admitted as an adoptive admission include:
1. whether the accusation was made in the defendant's presence;
2. whether the defendant heard and understood the accusation;
3. whether, in the circumstances, the defendant naturally would have denied the accusation; and
4. whether the defendant could deny but didn't.
The idea behind an adoptive admission by silence is that most people, if falsely accused of a crime, would immediately deny it. When someone does not deny it, that is an indication that the person has a guilty conscience. A person's own words, or under these circumstances, their lack of words, can be powerful evidence against the defendant.
On an important note, if there is an indication that the defendant's silence was based on him invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, his silence cannot be used against him.
For interesting criminal law concepts sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.
An adoptive admission is generally where the defendant, knowing the content of an accusation against him, adopts the truth of the accusation by his words or conduct.
This often comes up when the police plant someone in a jail cell with or next to the suspect. The cellmate will ask the suspect questions about the crime. The suspect may simply agree with the cellmate or may boast about his crimes.
For example, let's say the defendant makes a statement, "Yeah, man, that guy didn't know who he was messing with." That statement is admissible by itslef as an admission. But it becomes much more powerful as an adoptive admission when it is coupled with the cellmate's question, "You shot the guy because of the way he looked at you?"
Sometimes a defendant can adopt an accusation by his silence. If someone is accused of a crime under circumstances where he could hear, understand, and reply to the accusation, and he does not respond, both the accusation and his response (or lack thereof) may be admitted in court. The prosecutor can argue from this that the defendant admitted the crime.
Similarly, if the defendant responds to an accusation in a way that is evasive or equivocal, that can be admitted in court.
The factors to look for to determine if silence can be admitted as an adoptive admission include:
1. whether the accusation was made in the defendant's presence;
2. whether the defendant heard and understood the accusation;
3. whether, in the circumstances, the defendant naturally would have denied the accusation; and
4. whether the defendant could deny but didn't.
The idea behind an adoptive admission by silence is that most people, if falsely accused of a crime, would immediately deny it. When someone does not deny it, that is an indication that the person has a guilty conscience. A person's own words, or under these circumstances, their lack of words, can be powerful evidence against the defendant.
On an important note, if there is an indication that the defendant's silence was based on him invoking his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, his silence cannot be used against him.
For interesting criminal law concepts sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.
RSS Feed
