~> ~> There are people wrongfully convicted of crimes
~> ~> right here at home right now where the evidence against them was coerced
~> EC> from
~> ~> parties placed under some serious stress
~> ~> and their constitutional rights violated.
 
~> EC> In such instances the confessions and any evidence from them would
~> EC> be excluded from the trial.
 
~> THat's the way it's supposed to work.  Not the way it always does.
~> IN the WIlliams case I mentioned earlier, eventually justice was done,
but it
~> sure took awhile.  Again I reference, for
~> any who might have missed the original reference, John
~> Grisham's "an innocent man" which is not a work of his
~> fiction but a true account of some events which took palce
~> in the state of Oklahoma some years ago.

I haven't read the book, but I notice that on page 135 he notes that
Williamson talked voluntarily, was mirandized, and said that he understood
his miranda rights.  The "dream" part is a bit strange, but Williamson
admits that he "probably" went there with the intention of killing her. 
Even apart from the "dream" stuff, that admission would be pretty
incriminating if combined with the right circumstantial evidence. In
glancing through it looks like there was some prosecutorial misconduct in
the case, but the part I glanced at about the interrogation doesn't seem to
involve torture or coercion.  That is, again, based on a glance rather than
a full reading.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a