United States v. Hunter
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Indictment [against Frederick Hunter] for larceny. prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if the prisoner’s confession was made after threats, &c., or promises of favor, then neither the confession, nor the making satisfaction to the owner, is competent evidence against the prisoner in this prosecution. contended, that if the confession be corroborated by any facts discovered in consequence of the confession, the confession itself may go in evidence.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT
gave the following instruction, namely: If the jury should be satisfied, by the evidence, that the confession of the prisoner was made under the impulse of threats or of promises of favor, such confession is not evidence. But that any facts discovered in consequence of such confession, which facts would in themselves be evidence against the prisoner, are still good evidence, notwithstanding they were discovered by means of the confession. That the fact of payment, or satisfaction to the owner of the things stolen, is a fact admissible in evidence to the jury; but if the jury should…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Collins v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Bissell v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1824
- Frazer v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1893