Questions about Colorado Law

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Sophie, May 28, 2009.

  1. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, I can look this up on Lexis Nexus or something but I am pretty sure you lot can save me the a**e ache.

    1) Can police in Colorado lie to witnesses/suspects about evidence? E.g. Could a detective claim to have found someone's DNA at a crime scene if this weren't actually the case?
    2) Is there a statute relating to the age of criminal responsibility and could this realistically be tested in court or is it a common law principle anyway?


    Just asking because a couple of IDIs have made statements about the scariness of the BPD and the above principles and it would be helpful to know the exact score WRT these questions.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Different states have different statutes for offenders who are minors. Colorado law forbids anyone under the age of 10 (BR was just a few weeks shy of 10) from being charged with a crime, no matter how grave the offense. Not only that, it also forbids charging anyone if the child under 10 was an accomplice. So even if it was someone older, if BR was a party to the crime, the older person can't be charged. Now, I am not talking about being a WITNESS. I am talking about the child under 10 being a participant.
    I don't think that can be tested in court- the law is pretty specific and States Rights take precedence.
     
  4. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I been wondering the same thing.. Now I understand the law for age of 10 and younger but I also like to know if the LE could lie to a suspect.. Now I know most likely they use the good cop bad cop thing..But honestly to lie I think that would damage the case.. Npw we hear that they don't tell about all the evidence they have and they can't be blame for that cause this is sometimes how the catch the killer(s).. And for the R's if I remember right wanting all the evidence was wrong on their part in my opinion cause above all they couldn't had messed up everything if there was an intruder..
     
  5. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The police can lie during an interrogation. The prosecutors cannot lie.
     
  6. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you SD for clearing that up for me..
     
  7. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Thank you, Dee Dee. People have suggested over the years that the Ramseys feared that the BPD would strong-arm Burke into a false confession and I'd always assumed that this would be pointless given Burke's age but recently someone suggested that a judge had some latitude on the age issue so I just needed clarification. Thank you once again.
     
  8. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I honestly didn't know that, Dave. I thought they could maybe massage the truth a bit (e.g. Say 'what would you say if we told you we found your DNA on the victim?) but not outright lie.

    I may have to read the 2000 interviews again in the light of this.
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's a hypothetical question, though, Sophie. And even then, the canons take a dim view of it.

    I strongly suggest that you do!
     
  10. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Dave, I hope I didn't sound like I was disputing your statement. I was just really surprised. There was a case here where a guy was suspected of stealing some equipment from his employers. Police told him that his fingerprints were at the scene (which, of course they were, it was his office) so he folded and confessed. From the ensuing controversy, you'd have thought the police had been murdering newborn lambs. Police were eventually found not to have taken unfair liberties with a dimwit :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice