Question

A man and a woman were arrested and charged with conspiring to blow up a federal government building. After being given Miranda warnings, they were questioned separately and each of them gave a written confession. The confessions interlocked with each other, implicating both of the defendants as being involved in every stage of the conspiracy. Subsequently, the woman attempted to retract her confession, claiming that it was false. At a preliminary hearing, the judge rejected her claim. Both defendants were tried together, and the prosecutor introduced both confessions into evidence. At trial, the woman testified that she was not involved in any conspiracy and that her confession was fabricated. Both defendants were found guilty by the jury.The woman challenged her conviction on appeal because of the admission of the man's confession. If the woman succeeds, what is the likely reason?

Answer 1

If the woman succeeds in challenging her conviction on appeal because of the admission of the man's confession, the likely reason would be that her rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated.

Step-by-step explanation:

If the woman succeeds in challenging her conviction on appeal because of the admission of the man's confession, the likely reason would be that her rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, and any statements or confessions that were obtained in violation of this right may be considered involuntary and therefore inadmissible as evidence in court. By introducing the man's confession, which interlocked with the woman's confession, the prosecutor may have violated the woman's constitutional rights and undermined the fairness of her trial.

Learn more about The violation of the woman's Fifth Amendment rights

Answer 2

His confession wasn't properly admitted. The man was NOT crossed-examined regarding his confession which violated her Confrontation Clause rights.

According to the 6th Amendment of the Constitution, a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the right to confront adverse witnesses at a trial. In this case, two persons are being tried together and the man's confession implicates hers without him subjecting himself to cross-examination, which violates her Confrontation Clause rights.