Regarding seduction on the part of an informant, The Scholar's Reference toCriminal Appeal 7951/98 (Valencia)[Posted inNevo] "The defendant knew that he was facing a regular detainee [The Dubbed] which even if he had promised... Some promise... After all, this promise had no value ... Hence [that the defendant] He was assisted by an informant in order to get out of the distress he found himself in, and the decision to confess did not stem from external pressure., Seduction or indoctrination, Rather, it stemmed from internal pressure stemming from his desire to seek the advice of someone who presented himself as proficient in investigation and trial proceedings".
Here it is., As far as these invalid fathers are concerned, Distinguishing, As a general rule, Among those that can lead to the invalidation of a confession, and a measure whose admissibility is worthy of criticism but does not entail the inadmissibility of the evidence. The test is not technical, but substantive. The court cannot be satisfied with determining the inadmissibility itself, Rather, it is incumbent upon him to examine and answer the question of whether the use of the means is improper "Violated a substantive right of the defendant in such a way that the acceptance of the evidence obtained by means of it would cause him a miscarriage of justice or a violation of the degree of justice" (The book of the scholar Kedmi, Name, pp' 54, Based on the Alba Interest (There it was an improper ploy)).
As noted above, This is not a closed list, and by virtue of the ruling, more have been added "Invalid ancestors" Example, "Legal Advice" of the interrogator to the interrogee and- "The suggestive monologue".
- The Second Track for Examining the Admissibility of the Confession; The Doctrine of Judicial Invalidation which was formulated and anchored in the Issacharov ruling, In this framework, the court is given discretion to determine, Because a confession is inadmissible where he has reached a conclusion, that it was obtained illegally and that its acceptance as evidence at trial would cause a violation of the defendant's right to a fair trial (Name, pp' 569 - 570).
This is how the halacha was summarized in the case of Issacharov, Name in paragraph 76: