Admissions of guilt in criminal cases are to be received with great caution. The reason for this is the difficulties of the English language and the danger of mistakes in the use of words, inability of the accused to correctly express his own meaning, the frailties of memory, and the disturbed state of mind of the prisoner induced by his perilous situation.

To be admissible, confessions must be entirely voluntary, not induced by the flattery of hope or the torture of fear, nor elicited by promises of light punishment or non-prosecution. Confessions induced by hope held out to the prisoner by the public prosecutor, or an officer having the prisoner in custody, by a magistrate, or by any one having authority over him or concerned in the prosecution itself, or by a private person in the presence of one having such authority, are not voluntary and cannot be received.5 Confessions resulting from spiritual exhortations, promises of secrecy, or promises of reward having no connection with the criminal charge, are, however, deemed voluntary. However, any threats of violence, or any element of judicial compulsion will render a confession involuntary and vitiate the same as evidence.

5 1 Greenleaf, Sec. 222.

Where the defendant submits himself to examination at a coroner's inquest or preliminary hearing, he, of course, subjects himself to cross-examination. It has sometimes happened that a severe cross-examination has elicited statements from an accused person in the nature of confessions, or at least admissions, from which an inference of guilt might arise. Query. Are these statements admissible upon the trial of the prisoner? When the cross-examination has been unusually severe, so as to savor of brow-beating or compulsion, it has usually been held that such admissions are not voluntary and should be excluded.6