would information gathered from a telepath hold up in court

[IamtheRock3]

if they existed


One could argue...the human mind is a jumbled place with multiple thoughs and ideas popping in your head. A thought about killing someone could pop in your head, when you really arent going to do it. Or when someone ask you a question if you rob the bank, you could think what if think I said yes.

Sense we dont really think it CLEAR SENTENCES

Also there the whole INVASION of privacy thing.

[ShaunN]

Dear Iamtherock,

Years ago - as in about 30 years ago - I remember reading an excerpt from a story where a young girl who was a telepath was asked to read the mind of a man who was on trial for fraud. She did so - the thought that she picked up from him was "you can always catch suckers if you go deep". The man admitted that this was what he thought, but he also got up and made the argument that the very idea of someone's thoughts being read was a the most fundamental violation of the right to privacy that there could be.

In short, there is an old sci-fi story out there that deals with this very subject. Given how inherently interesting the subject is, I'm sure that there are lots of other stories dealing with the same subject.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Sarah Beach]

Evidence from witnesses (and a telepath would theoretically qualify as a "witness") has to be independantly corroborated, by another witness, or by the physical evidence. Physical evidence, if accompanied by documentation that it is what it is declared to be (ie, the footprint from the shoe of the defendant, and no other person), is considered sufficient unto itself (I think that's the way it is).

So... how would you corroborate the testimony of the telepathic witness?

Psychics are used in some investigations, and police have to be very careful in using them. They cannot give the psychic information on the case prior to the psychic "taking their reading" or whatever. And even then, physical evidence that ties to the case has to be entered into the record, to support the psychic.

(That's one of the reasons why I find psychics who enter into high profile cases dubious at best, because they've already heard far too much about the case in any public reporting of it.)

And as you say, what we think isn't really useful in determining what we are actually going to do.

Heck, even your websurfing history isn't necessarily a reflection of your possible actions. For instance: I'm a writer. I happen to like writing mysteries, procedurals, thrillers. I've done research online about explosives for possible stories. If someone looked at that search history, they might conclude that I was planning to blow something up -- they might even report me to the authorities. But they would be making the wrong conclusion.

And that's not even a hypothetical situation --- consider the charges leveled against Pete Townshend in 2003.

[dragonbat]

Well, one of the few areas of American history where I feel reasonably knowlegeable is the Salem Witch Trials. At the time, people were convicted based on spectral evidence (http://www.salemwitchtrials.com/faqs.html#spectral). I think telepathic evidence would fall subject to the same sort of pitfalls. In other words, there's no objective way to prove or disprove the testimony.

[VincentD]

I think it would be treated similarly to a verbal confession and the right to remain silent. If a detective beats the hell out of the suspect to get a confession, the confession is not admissible. The detective can't force the suspect to confess. The suspect has to waive his or her rights and of their own free will, confess.

If a telepath "forced" his or her way into a suspect's mind without the suspect's consent to get the confession, it would fall under the same sort of law, I would imagine.

[Buzz Dixon]

Alfred Bester's THE DEMOLISHED MAN is based on the intriguing premise of committing a crime in a future populated by telepaths. I won't spoil the fun of how the protagonist does/does not get away with it, but Bester's logic was that the telepaths could only provide hearsay evidence, but could use information they gleaned telepathically to find clues and evidence in the physical world.

The detective assigned to solve the case knows the protagonist has murdered someone from the moment he meets him, what ensues are his efforts to find all the necessary physical proof to put him away.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm also not entirely sure how cross-examination would work in cases like this .... also, considering that the defendant has effectively had his fifth amendment rights taken away by proxy, if I understand the terms correctly. Loren, where are you? :redface:

Also, how do you determine that the telepath isn't lying ...?

[Paul McEnery]

if they existed


One could argue...the human mind is a jumbled place with multiple thoughs and ideas popping in your head. A thought about killing someone could pop in your head, when you really arent going to do it. Or when someone ask you a question if you rob the bank, you could think what if think I said yes.

Sense we dont really think it CLEAR SENTENCES

Also there the whole INVASION of privacy thing.

Only if they could beam it directly into the jury's head.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm also not entirely sure how cross-examination would work in cases like this .... also, considering that the defendant has effectively had his fifth amendment rights taken away by proxy, if I understand the terms correctly. Loren, where are you? :redface:

Also, how do you determine that the telepath isn't lying ...?

Thumbscrews.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I'm guessing in the US, the fifth amendment would protect the defendant in most cases. At least, that's what I'd argue: Someone cannot be forced to reveal information that will incriminate themselves.

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

Seem to remember an old TWILIGHT ZONE episode where a man suddenly granted telepathic abilities reads the mind of a teller and alerts the authorities said teller is plotting to rob the bank. Turns out it's just the teller's revenge fantasy daydream and he has no genuine plans to do anything of the kind.

[mailedbypostman1]

Also, how do you determine that the telepath isn't lying ...?

Who watches the watchmen? :biggrin: And the answer of course, is another telepath. One with a positive seller's reputation.

[Loren]

I'm also not entirely sure how cross-examination would work in cases like this .... also, considering that the defendant has effectively had his fifth amendment rights taken away by proxy, if I understand the terms correctly. Loren, where are you? :redface:

Also, how do you determine that the telepath isn't lying ...?

Since Rock's question presupposes "if they existed," I'll take it as a given that we're dealing with a hypothetical world where telepathic ability is not only possible, but scientifically recognized as being possible.

With that in mind, I have to go with the broad answer of "Yes, it's admissible, if..." And frankly, there are a lot of permutations here.

First off, we can all but rule out the notion of telepaths using their ability to 'interrogate' suspects against their will, and then testifying in court based on the knowledge obtained. That's simply going to be a Fifth Amendment violation. However, if the defendant voluntarily took the stand and denied something that he had telepathically 'confessed' to, the telepath could probably take the stand for purposes of impeachment.

The big sticking point in any telepath's testimony would be their qualification as a witness. This would undoubtedly involve additional testimony by an expert, probably in a pre-trial setting, who could testify to the telepath's 'credentials' as a mind-reader. You'd have to prove to the court (and convince the jury) that the telepath's readings were accurate and reliable. This would involve some amount of pre-hearing scientific testing of the telepath.

Cross-examination wouldn't be terribly difficult; the defense would simply do its best to call the telepath's determinations into doubt. It'd more or less be a variation on how defense counsel attack eyewitness accounts. Defense strategy is regularly to call into question the truthfulness or reliability of the prosecution/plaintiff witnesses. One obvious question to raise is how certain is the telepath that the thoughts he heard came from the defendant, and not from someone else? Do people think with identifiable 'voices'?

Then there's the laundry list of circumstances you could imagine a telepath's testimony being useful. An 'overheard' confession. An 'eyewitness' identification made via thoughts, and not physical appearance (which could lead to telepathic line-ups). Telepathic testimony regarding thoughts of conspiracies or planned attempts for crimes as-yet-uncommitted. With the right foundation, a telepath's testimony might be admissible in any of those cases.

[Red Jack]

if they existed


One could argue...the human mind is a jumbled place with multiple thoughs and ideas popping in your head. A thought about killing someone could pop in your head, when you really arent going to do it. Or when someone ask you a question if you rob the bank, you could think what if think I said yes.

Sense we dont really think it CLEAR SENTENCES

Also there the whole INVASION of privacy thing.

No. Not unless 100% of the people present were also telepaths.

[Spiffy]

Can anyone say "hearsay evidence"?

I knew that you could!

[MartinRedmond]

I search into the culprits mind for info on how where who why and when he commited the crime. Then I write down all the details for the detectives to investigate. Hope that helps.

[s33r]

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I'm one of those people who considers any sort of telepathic intrusion to be a disgusting invasion of privacy. Simply reading someone's surface thoughts seems akin to shuffling through their underwear - while they're still wearing it. Actually delving deeper in search of hidden thoughts would be almost rape.

Which brings up a question which may be slightly off-topic - what kind of crimes would telepathy itself merit? "Invasion of privacy" doesn't quite cover it, in my opinion.