Mason's Admission-Against-Interest

That's a term GA's legal department, Not-Stempler, was tossing around in our conversation today.

The meaning isn't too hard to divine, and you can guess what we were talking about: the Beth Mason statement that's burning up the Hoboken blogosphere:

"...unless there's proof I'm going to say I've NOT seen those emails."

I was hoping Not-Stempler would have time to write me another crisp analysis sprinkled with legal mumbo jumbo, but he's been very busy billing clients an astronomical $850/hr.   And like Beth Mason, I don't pay for friendship.  So, we had a chat.

First, here's the definition of an admission against interest:
In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.
Now here's what Not-Stempler had to say about Mason's remarks- slowly, so I could take notes.
I am not the least bit surprised at her admission against interest because she has established a clear pattern of engaging in behavior which is contrary to basic advice from competent counsel.

As for her admission against interest, she is saying that unless someone can prove her guilt, that shell will deny seeing the emails. Such a statement in public forum in her capacity as an elected official is beyond self-destructive.

It goes without saying that it is in her interest to establish her innocence. Her statement can easily be construed as an admission against her interest. If she does become subject to criminal prosecution, then the statement would be used by a prosecutor as evidence for the jury to consider, even if she failed to take the stand in her defense. It would be up to the jury to evaluate her statement.

As I noted to you, a prosecutor can’t force someone to testify against themselves. Of course, if a defendant has made previous statements against their interests those statements can be used against the defendant, even if the defendant does not take the stand.

Thanks, Not-Stempler.  Especially since our 5-minutes on the phone  would have cost me $70.83 if you were paid for friendship.  But remember, you're NOT!

Thank goodness.

MSV's got a write-up on this "unintended consequence" as well.


  1. Hey tell Not Stempler Da Horsey posted his analysis first in a single word understood by everyone: confession. So that means Not Stempler owes $11.19 to MSV.

    Will that be cash or check? ;)


Post a Comment