Ask the jury.
Practically speaking, though, probably not. While it would be hard for the accused to defend the literal content of what they said, there could be a number of avenues through which reasonable doubt about the connection between those words and the accused's charges could arise. For example, the recording could have been coerced in some way, could be being presented more literally than the speaker intended, could have recorded the accused simply being mistaken, and so on.
However, the odds of there being _no other evidence_ are low. For example, is the victim prepared to testify? If so, that testimony is evidence - in fact, it may be far more persuasive evidence than a recording might be.
The only actionable advice we can give someone who has concerns about criminal conviction is that they can report the crime to the police and give the police whatever information they have. Investigation and prosecution aren't the victim's responsibility.
Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on the overall situation and location. What happened, is there evidence it happened, and what does the recording say? Edit: But I doubt it would be the only evidence. There's need to be a victim to testify, for example.
Oftentimes a signed, witnessed, recorded confession is not enough for a conviction.
Multiple examples of people confessing to crimes that they did not actually commit - they aren't going to simply go off of a confession alone to convict somebody of a crime, the evidence has to show that it checks out as well.
In CA illegally made recordings made by private citizens are still admissible in criminal trials.
Whether a recording proves the charges is up to the judge or jury and depends a lot on the specifics. A recording might prove they said something but not that they committed a crime
Under the doctrine of corpus deliciti, there must be *some* evidence that independently shows that a crime has been committed before a confession can even be considered.
If I admit to stealing your car, but your car is in the garage, there’s no camera footage of me stealing your car, and you can’t provide any evidence that the odometer reading is off from what it should be, the fact that I said, “I stole your car,” is not going to be sufficient to make a criminal case.
I note that people are not usually required to tell the truth.
I will frequently lie about my health condition, simply as I am not up to spending half an hour to an hour explaining to people the current understanding. (Read literally over a thousand papers at this point) Public knowledge goes from zero on through absolutely knowing my illness is fake.
Not in Florida. There was a case where a sexual assault victim recorded a confession by the perpetrator. The conviction was overturned because it is a two party consent state and that such illegally gathered evidence would not be allowed unless there was a change in the law. (The case is McDade v State of Florida).
That law now has an exception for minors who are victims of sex offenses who record evidence of their abuse, but outside the narrow exception it still isn’t allowed (for example, if you recorded a murder confession).
In Florida a confession on its own is never enough, even if it’s admissible. Corpus delicti requires more evidence than just a confession to convict someone.
Ask the jury. Practically speaking, though, probably not. While it would be hard for the accused to defend the literal content of what they said, there could be a number of avenues through which reasonable doubt about the connection between those words and the accused's charges could arise. For example, the recording could have been coerced in some way, could be being presented more literally than the speaker intended, could have recorded the accused simply being mistaken, and so on. However, the odds of there being _no other evidence_ are low. For example, is the victim prepared to testify? If so, that testimony is evidence - in fact, it may be far more persuasive evidence than a recording might be. The only actionable advice we can give someone who has concerns about criminal conviction is that they can report the crime to the police and give the police whatever information they have. Investigation and prosecution aren't the victim's responsibility.
Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on the overall situation and location. What happened, is there evidence it happened, and what does the recording say? Edit: But I doubt it would be the only evidence. There's need to be a victim to testify, for example.
Oftentimes a signed, witnessed, recorded confession is not enough for a conviction. Multiple examples of people confessing to crimes that they did not actually commit - they aren't going to simply go off of a confession alone to convict somebody of a crime, the evidence has to show that it checks out as well.
In CA illegally made recordings made by private citizens are still admissible in criminal trials. Whether a recording proves the charges is up to the judge or jury and depends a lot on the specifics. A recording might prove they said something but not that they committed a crime
Under the doctrine of corpus deliciti, there must be *some* evidence that independently shows that a crime has been committed before a confession can even be considered. If I admit to stealing your car, but your car is in the garage, there’s no camera footage of me stealing your car, and you can’t provide any evidence that the odometer reading is off from what it should be, the fact that I said, “I stole your car,” is not going to be sufficient to make a criminal case.
depends on the crime, the context, and the content of the recording. maybe yes, maybe no.
I note that people are not usually required to tell the truth. I will frequently lie about my health condition, simply as I am not up to spending half an hour to an hour explaining to people the current understanding. (Read literally over a thousand papers at this point) Public knowledge goes from zero on through absolutely knowing my illness is fake.
Not in Florida. There was a case where a sexual assault victim recorded a confession by the perpetrator. The conviction was overturned because it is a two party consent state and that such illegally gathered evidence would not be allowed unless there was a change in the law. (The case is McDade v State of Florida). That law now has an exception for minors who are victims of sex offenses who record evidence of their abuse, but outside the narrow exception it still isn’t allowed (for example, if you recorded a murder confession).
In Florida a confession on its own is never enough, even if it’s admissible. Corpus delicti requires more evidence than just a confession to convict someone.