I Confessed to the Cops – Will I Lose at My Preliminary Hearing?
Not necessarily.
The point of a preliminary hearing is for the prosecution to convince a judge that a felony was committed and that you were the one who committed it.[i]
But a judge will need more than your bare confession[ii] to be convinced. In fact, that’s the law.
THE PROSECUTION CANNOT PROVE A PERSON’S GUILT BASED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSION. THAT’S THE LAW.
Under a principle known as corpus delicti, the prosecution cannot prove a person’s guilt based solely on his confession. Instead the prosecution must produce other, independent evidence that establishes both that a crime occurred and that the person they’ve accused is the one who committed it.[iii]
Normally, prosecutors attempt to prove a person’s wrongdoing by introducing witnesses who, because of what they’ve seen or what they’ve heard, can link that person to an alleged crime. But every so often, the prosecution will try to prove that a crime occurred, even though no one witnessed it. Sometimes, in such instances, the prosecution’s only piece of evidence is a person’s confession or other incriminating statement.
For instance, what if an intoxicated motorist is found standing next to his car and admits to police that he had been driving? If no one else actually saw the motorist driving, is he guilty of DUI?
If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Yes: Not guilty.
Or if police surveilled several suspected drug dealers, but never actually saw them selling drugs — have the suspected dealers engaged in a conspiracy to possess drugs for sale? Or if a burglar is found strangling a young girl, has he committed a forcible lewd act on a child when the only evidence of his sexual interest in the girl was statements he had made in the past?
In each of these instances, the prosecution would have to provide something more than just the accused’s incriminating statements – damning as they are – before a judge would allow the matter to proceed to trial.[iv]
A CONFESSION, BY ITSELF, CANNOT SUSTAIN A PROSECUTION. WITHOUT MORE EVIDENCE, THE PROSECUTION’S CASE WILL FALL APART AND, ULTIMATELY, BE DISMISSED.[v]
Contact a Professional
There are many reasons why people confess to the police. Some may think that their cooperation will bring leniency. Others may feel pressured by police, saying what they feel they must in order to be allowed to go home. And then are those who simply feel compelled to be honest.
But a confession or other sort of self-incriminating statement does not guarantee a prison sentence. Always remember that the burden is on the prosecution to provide adequate evidence of your alleged guilt. And if all they have are just words, then the case against you is doomed to fail from the start.
If you’ve been accused of a felony and would like to speak with someone, help is available. Michael J. Ocampo is a skilled criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. Michael will discuss with you your options, what to expect at your preliminary hearing, and what steps you can take to defend yourself against the prosecution’s allegations. Contact former prosecutor Michael J. Ocampo at (714) 451-6834 to schedule your free, initial consultation.
[i] Penal Code §866(b).
[ii] This, of course, assumes that your confession was voluntary, rather than coerced, and that the police informed you of your right to remain silent before they spoke with you.
[iii] The legal principle of corpus delicti applies during the preliminary hearing as well. People v. Powers-Monachello (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 400, 409. See also CALCRIM 359; Rayyis v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 12, 17; People v. Herrera (2006) 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 578, 584. Note: There is an exception for alleged children who are victims of sexual abuse. Statements that these alleged victims made to police or child welfare services can be presented as evidence of a person’s guilt, even if the alleged child victim is not present in court to be asked about his or her statements. Evidence Code §1228.
[iv] But, strangely enough, at the preliminary hearing, the prosecution is allowed to use the incriminating statements of an accomplice as the sole piece of evidence to prove a person’s culpability. Essentially, if your accomplice accuses you of a crime, that’s good enough to allow the matter to proceed to trial. This remains true even if the accomplice’s statement is uncorroborated. People v. McRae (1947) 31 Cal.2d 184, 186; Arteaga v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App. 4th 851, 855.
[v] Penal Code §1385(a). Additionally, the defense may ask the judge make a factual finding in order to prevent the prosecution from getting a second bite at the apple by refiling the charge in a different way. Pizano v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 128, 133; Jones v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 660, 666; Walker v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 884, 889; Penal Code §995(a)(2)(A).
Attorney Michael J. Ocampo is a former deputy district attorney. He focuses his practice exclusively on criminal law so that he can help those accused of a crime — often ordinary, everyday people — ensure that their rights are honored and that they receive a fair opportunity to be heard.
