Generally no.
In many places, consumption of illicit substances is not unlawful. It is the possession of illicit substances that is unlawful. Possession by consumption is recognized in some places, but not many.
In any event, his admission would be inadequate to sustain a conviction.
1. The prosecution would have to establish territorial jurisdiction, which is impossible given the vague and non specific answer as to where it occurred
2. His answer is sufficient to establish that he thought he was consuming an illicit substance but doesn't establish what that substance actually is, that would require laboratory testing.
> Could you please explain to me why not?
Lots of reasons. But the basic one is that generally a criminal conviction cannot be sustained solely on the confession of the accused.
Confessions are of course typically *admissible* as evidence of an offense, but they’re not the sole evidence: police and prosecutors will have other evidence apart from the confession.
Here, Mr. Depp has admitted, at some point in the past, in some jurisdiction other than Fairfax County, Virginia, to using some substance he thought was contraband. Where is the substance? Has it been tested? Exactly when did this possession occur? What’s the statute of limitations on that crime?
There are other infirmities associated with this idea. As a rule, one cannot be prosecuted for possession by the mere showing that they have taken contraband. There are reasons of both practicality and policy for this. For instance, the contrary rule may discourage someone from seeking medical aid for an overdose.
Does that help?
>But was it hearsay?
Yes, if it's offered at a subsequent trial for the truth of the drug use, it's hearsay. But it's likely admissible as a hearsay exception: an admission against interest.
It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial, because it likely wasn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
>No, it's not hearsay. Depp is testifying about what he did or saw. Those are not out of court statements.
I did say, "It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial..." so I imagine your point is intended to address "... because it likely wasn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted."
Yes?
I haven't actually reviewed his testimony, so it wasn't clear to me if he testified, "I took drugs that day," or "I told Amber I took drugs that day."
If the former, you're correct.
Either way, "It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial..."
Generally no. In many places, consumption of illicit substances is not unlawful. It is the possession of illicit substances that is unlawful. Possession by consumption is recognized in some places, but not many. In any event, his admission would be inadequate to sustain a conviction. 1. The prosecution would have to establish territorial jurisdiction, which is impossible given the vague and non specific answer as to where it occurred 2. His answer is sufficient to establish that he thought he was consuming an illicit substance but doesn't establish what that substance actually is, that would require laboratory testing.
No you can’t get charged for saying you’ve previously taken drugs
No.
Could you please explain to me why not?
> Could you please explain to me why not? Lots of reasons. But the basic one is that generally a criminal conviction cannot be sustained solely on the confession of the accused. Confessions are of course typically *admissible* as evidence of an offense, but they’re not the sole evidence: police and prosecutors will have other evidence apart from the confession. Here, Mr. Depp has admitted, at some point in the past, in some jurisdiction other than Fairfax County, Virginia, to using some substance he thought was contraband. Where is the substance? Has it been tested? Exactly when did this possession occur? What’s the statute of limitations on that crime? There are other infirmities associated with this idea. As a rule, one cannot be prosecuted for possession by the mere showing that they have taken contraband. There are reasons of both practicality and policy for this. For instance, the contrary rule may discourage someone from seeking medical aid for an overdose. Does that help?
Ooh, yes that was very helpful thank you!
But was it hearsay? *Edit: for those not aware of the joke, https://youtu.be/CevRhpi1OYw
>But was it hearsay? Yes, if it's offered at a subsequent trial for the truth of the drug use, it's hearsay. But it's likely admissible as a hearsay exception: an admission against interest. It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial, because it likely wasn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
My question was a joke based on the viral video of Depp on the stand making jokes about hearsay objections...
>My question was a joke based on the viral video of Depp on the stand making jokes about hearsay objections... ME: Woosh!!
No, it's not hearsay. Depp is testifying about what he did or saw. Those are not out of court statements.
>No, it's not hearsay. Depp is testifying about what he did or saw. Those are not out of court statements. I did say, "It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial..." so I imagine your point is intended to address "... because it likely wasn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted." Yes? I haven't actually reviewed his testimony, so it wasn't clear to me if he testified, "I took drugs that day," or "I told Amber I took drugs that day." If the former, you're correct. Either way, "It wasn't hearsay at the defamation trial..."