A woman and man were charged with murder. Each gave a confession to the police that implicated both of them. The woman later retracted her confession claiming that it was coerced. The woman and man were tried together. The prosecutor offered both confessions into evidence. The woman and man objected. After a hearing, the trial judge found that both confessions were voluntary and admitted both into evidence. The woman testified at trial, and the man did not. She claimed that her confession was false and the result of coercion. Both defendants were convicted. On appeal, the woman contends her conviction should be reversed because of the admission into evidence of the man's confession. The woman's contention is

she was to give involuntary confession.

Explanation:

Remember, we are told, "the woman later retracted her confession claiming that it was coerced". In law when a defendant claims that their confession was coerced (involuntary), it cannot be used against a defendant in court even if it was true.

In fact, the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona case sets this judicial precedence.

no i don't think so.

explanation:

answer:

"it is often classified as either a schedule ii or schedule iii substance, making it illegal to possess for personal use or distribution. crystal meth can be ingested, injected, or smoked. it is a highly addictive substance and can lead to many different personal, medical, and legal problems."

this is the link

hope your friend dont get in trouble