Colorado v. Connelly

In a closely contested decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that rules of evidence sufficiently covered instances wherein a confession made by a mentally ill defendant resulted in the gathering and admission of evidence into trial. By opting to not invoke the constitutional issue of due process or question the applicability of Miranda rights, the Court sent a clear message to lower courts that rarely did coercion entail circumstances other than those brought about by police misconduct. The mere fact that police recorded a confession made by a mentally ill suspect, collected sufficient evidence to build a substantial case because of leads provided by that statement, and provided the statement for the state to admit into trial did not, of itself, constitute a violative waiver of Miranda rights nor a denial of due process. As such, lower courts were given guidance that so long as statements made during a police interview were given voluntarily and freely, regardless of the mental state of the interviewee, that such statements were constitutionally sanctioned and, therefore, admissible as evidence in a court of law.