They can be written documents, such as a letter stating something like..."You know I wasn't there...". Such a statement in a letter (or email) is worthless as proof of anything without the person to whom it was addressed acknowledging that it is a true statement. The same is true of un-corroborated statements to LE.
Self-serving statements are any self-exculpatory statements that lack neutral corroborating evidence or eyewitness testimony. Zimmerman's statement to Sanford PD meets this definition.
I provided one of many decisions that are out there to be found.
How about instead of giggling you provide one that supports your assertion.....
>> “Self-serving statements are any self-exculpatory statements that lack neutral corroborating evidence or eyewitness testimony. Zimmerman’s statement to Sanford PD meets this definition.” <<
.
Why are we not surprised to see that you are a part of the lynch mob?
You are on record opposing everything FR stands for.
.
They can be written documents, such as a letter stating something like..."You know I wasn't there...". Such a statement in a letter (or email) is worthless as proof of anything without the person to whom it was addressed acknowledging that it is a true statement. The same is true of un-corroborated statements to LE.
Self-serving statements are any self-exculpatory statements that lack neutral corroborating evidence or eyewitness testimony. Zimmerman's statement to Sanford PD meets this definition.
I provided one of many decisions that are out there to be found.
wtc911, we have nothing to rebut because all the cases you have cited deal with hearsay. An exculpatory statement to law enforcement by a declarant, whether contemporaneous or after Miranda waiver, is not the same as a third-party recitation of another's statement out of court, nor is it the same as a completely non-relevant self-serving statement such as "you know I wasn't there" during a jailhouse telephone call with one's attorney.
You have posted neither caselaw nor Rule that makes exculpatory statements to law enforcment, by a decalarant, inadmissable or of diminished value at trial.
Indeed, under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution must provide all exculpatory evidence, including statements made to police) to the defense prior to trial. Is this merely so that such evidence can be suppressed at trial?
I think not.