Can People Really Get Charged/Convicted of Murder with Confession but no Proof?

[Hershon]

What is the name of your state? CA

Just watched another 48 hours and they were documenting the case of Ryan Ferguson which I was astonished by. I have some legal questions based on the case in which his friend confessed to a murder 2 years after the fact that was just written about in a newspaper but the guy provided absolutely no details as to what occured and seemed clueless about the particulars. He named his friend Ryan Ferguson as his accomplice and actual killer.

As there was no evidence that the confessor did the crime, either circumstantial or tangible, and the confessor got key facts wrong, should he have even been charged in the first place?

Ryan Ferguson based on the confessor's statements was charged and tried as well and was convicted based on the confessor's statements in court, statements that the guy didn't make when he confessed and a witness who stated he could not identify anyone when he saw two people running from the scene but now can identify them 2 plus years later.

Obviously the confessor learned/was coached about the crime from the police while in jail.

Now I'm not saying Ryan is innocent, but how can a jury possibly convict based on this. Note, the show was obviously slanted and my questions are based on what I saw. If you say, one can't make a fair evaluation based on a 1 hour TV presentation, I'll accept that., it just seemed so bizarre and the jury seemed like idiots when interviewed later.

 

[fairisfair]

What is the name of your state? CA

Just watched another 48 hours and they were documenting the case of Ryan Ferguson which I was astonished by. I have some legal questions based on the case in which his friend confessed to a murder 2 years after the fact that was just written about in a newspaper but the guy provided absolutely no details as to what occured and seemed clueless about the particulars. He named his friend Ryan Ferguson as his accomplice and actual killer.

As there was no evidence that the confessor did the crime, either circumstantial or tangible, and the confessor got key facts wrong, should he have even been charged in the first place?

Ryan Ferguson based on the confessor's statements was charged and tried as well and was convicted based on the confessor's statements in court, statements that the guy didn't make when he confessed and a witness who stated he could not identify anyone when he saw two people running from the scene but now can identify them 2 plus years later.

Obviously the confessor learned/was coached about the crime from the police while in jail.

Now I'm not saying Ryan is innocent, but how can a jury possibly convict based on this. Note, the show was obviously slanted and my questions are based on what I saw. If you say, one can't make a fair evaluation based on a 1 hour TV presentation, I'll accept that., it just seemed so bizarre and the jury seemed like idiots when interviewed later.

you don't actually think the jury was able to see exactly what YOU saw on TV do you?

So you are on a jury, you are presented a confession from the "killer"

and testimony from the police as to why they believe that this person committed the crime,

along with other possible "evidence" that they might have.

Do you convict?

and psssssst. . . . . . .there are some idiots on juries.

By the way, I saw the same show. If I remember correctly his confession was based on a dream that he had that he had killed this person.

 

[tranquility]

No. In CA, you cannot be convicted of any crime based solely on your confession. There must be some evidence besides your statement.

 

[Hershon]

Fairs Fair Would You Have Convicted?

Fairs Fair, would you have convicted based on what you saw? Here's what I don't understand. I really don't see the Police Offering any evidence to show they did anything. My main questions are: 1. How can they allow an identification be made by someone who said he couldn't identify anything at the time? 2. How can the "confessor" give a statement in court as to what he said happened, when he didn't know what happened when he confessed? 3. I would have thought the fact that the confessor's comments were clearly wrong as to them returning to the bar, would discredit his statement further.

Furthermore, if a juror says on record that they decided the defendent was guilty way before the trial was over and basically everything introduced afterwards was irrelevant, isn't that grounds for mistrial? The worst is, it took them all of 5 hours total to come to a verdict seems beyond believability especially when one would have thought with all the blood, there would have been some blood on them and how can a bunch of drunken teens commit "the perfect crime"?

I still can't say the guy is innocent but DA's case seemed incredibly weak.

 

[xylene]

I still can't say the guy is innocent but DA's case seemed incredibly weak.

You watched a highly edited news magazine.

If you are curious about legal mechanics, the real nuts and bolts, attend a trial.

 

[fairisfair]

Fairs Fair, would you have convicted based on what you saw? Here's what I don't understand. I really don't see the Police Offering any evidence to show they did anything. My main questions are: 1. How can they allow an identification be made by someone who said he couldn't identify anything at the time? 2. How can the "confessor" give a statement in court as to what he said happened, when he didn't know what happened when he confessed? 3. I would have thought the fact that the confessor's comments were clearly wrong as to them returning to the bar, would discredit his statement further.

Furthermore, if a juror says on record that they decided the defendent was guilty way before the trial was over and basically everything introduced afterwards was irrelevant, isn't that grounds for mistrial? The worst is, it took them all of 5 hours total to come to a verdict seems beyond believability especially when one would have thought with all the blood, there would have been some blood on them and how can a bunch of drunken teens commit "the perfect crime"?

I still can't say the guy is innocent but DA's case seemed incredibly weak.

No, I would not have convicted on what I saw.

I might however have convicted on what I didn't see on the show.

Or on the crappy confession if I was not privy to the information regarding it's crappiness.

Innocent people are convicted all the time. And guilty ones go free.

 

[Hershon]

My biggest problem is that it took them all of 5 hours to get a guilty verdict given the lack of actual evidence.

 

[xylene]

My biggest problem is that it took them all of 5 hours to get a guilty verdict given the lack of actual evidence.

It took you all of 1 hour TV time (with commercials) to decide you know better.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

isnt a confession actually considered "evidence" ?

 

[CdwJava]

isnt a confession actually considered "evidence" ?

In this case, if he confessed to the crime - yeah.

A confession absent any evidence of a crime will generally be insufficient to even bring the person to trial.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

A confession absent any evidence of a crime will generally be insufficient to even bring the person to trial.

The corpus delecti is the minimum required to be proven up (by other evidence) before any confession is even admissible.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

yeah but you are talking about murder right? what if someone confesses to something less than that? like burglary or rape?

 

[tranquility]

While corpus delicti in murder may include a corpse of a murdered person, it is more correctly considered the body of the crime. It is the fact that a crime has been committed.

 

[Hershon]

To clarify my position to another poster, I never said he was innocent or guilty, just that I thought it was ridiculous for them to come to a guilty verdict in all of 5 hours and the jury to state on record for TV that once they heard the "confessors" testimony they ignored the other evidence.

Basically, for any well known crime, there are numerous mentally disturbed people who confess to a crime that they didn't commit. In this case, based on what was shown on TV, the
"confessor" did not reveal anything that wasn't known to the public and in fact didn't seem to know much about the crime at all, but was still charged with murder and his friend was charged with murder just based on the confessor's word and no actual evidence.

I was just amazed something like this was allowed to go forward in court and the jury was stupider then OJ's and they made up their minds before the trial was over and ignored testimony.

The one thing I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned is that Ryan Ferguson's lawyer seems like a complete incompetent.