The legal requirements for acquiring admissible statements in Arizona State is that a defendant, while in custody and undergoing a custodial interrogation should be informed of their rights. This is provided for by the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees the right not to incriminate one’s self, and by the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel even if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer (Biddulph, 2010). In California, admissibility of a statement is based on the judges’ final say. It is said that the law surrounding the acquisition of statement that are admissible in a court of law is complex due to the limitations of the California Code of Evidence, Code of Civil Procedure, and Constitutional limitations (Jones, 2010). For example, legal requirement for acquiring admissible statement is based on ‘hearsay evidence.’ A hearsay evidence is evidence that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (2009 California Evidence Code – Section 1200-1205, 2009). Hearsay evidence is only admissible if it meets all the exceptions of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.
In New York State, for evidence obtained from a defendant to be admissible, it must have been obtained from the defendant voluntarily. This means that any evidence obtained from the defendant by use of threat or physical force, by means of promise or through violation of defendant’s rights in not admissible (New York Criminal Procedure - Article 60 - § 60.45 Rules of Evidence; Admissibility of Statements of Defendants, 2010). Finally, in Illinois, statements made to provide evidence for or against commission of a crime obtained under observation of the requirement of the state law are admissible. The requirements are that no force should be used, defendant’s rights should be observed, and witnesses providing the evidence should not be under any direction from the defendant (Illinois Compiled Statutes 735 Civil Procedure: Article VIII – Evidence, 2010).
In Arizona, New York and Illinois States, there is similarity is legal requirement for acquiring admissible statements because all the states require that evidence provided by the defendant be voluntary obtained from such a defendant without violation of any rights of a defendant. The only difference which has been observed in all the states is that in California, admissibility of statement depends on the decision of the judges unlike in other states where admissibility of statements is based on the circumstances under which the statement was obtained and application of the law concerning obtaining of evidence from a defendant or a witness. From a personal perspective, the most interesting concept regarding admissibility of statements in these states is that the rights of the defendant are highly observed while obtaining any form of information from the defendant. His shows that, despite the defendant being the one who is usually accused for committing a certain offence, he or she does not cease to be a human being and should therefore be accorded all the rights that a human being is entitled to.