California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Vega, 220 Cal.App.3d 310, 269 Cal.Rptr. 413 (Cal. App. 1990):
We recognize it is not uncommon that a single statement may tend to prove guilt or innocence, depending upon the state of the remaining evidence[220 Cal.App.3d 318] and the issue for which it is being considered. Many times extrajudicial statements of defendants, especially when made in the context of questioning by authorities, have the purpose of asserting innocence. Although a statement when made may not be incriminating, when considered with the rest of the evidence at trial it may nevertheless be viewed as an admission. For example, a defendant's statement denying participation in a crime may create an inference of incredibility or consciousness of guilt when considered along with other evidence connecting the defendant with the crime. That same statement may be purely exculpatory when considered in the absence of that other evidence. (See People v. Cole (1903) 141 Cal. 88, 74 P. 547.) Similarly, a statement by a defendant purportedly giving an innocent explanation of the circumstances may be so implausible that it is incredible, thereby tending to prove guilt. Yet the implausible explanation may still be relied upon as a defense.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.