At the very end of 'Columbo goes to college' as Justin and Coop are being hauled away, Columbo asks the boys why they did it. We have not heard anyone read the boys their rights at this stage however, in front of multiple witnesses, Justin clearly confessed to killing the professor.

My question is, as the boys had clearly been taken into police custody at the time but not had their rights read, would Justin's confession have been admissible at any subsequent trial?

During my lunch hour at work, I've been reading the Clay Shaw (the only person to have been put on trial for the murder of President Kennedy by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the late 60s) trial transcript, and there are a lot of instances where something that someone heard or was directly told, was objected to and was ruled as inadmissible due to it being hearsay. I've always thought that if someone said something directly to you, then it wasn't hearsay because it was first hand knowledge, but a lot of direct conversations were ruled inadmissible. Only what the witness on the stand said was allowed. Does this work in Justin's case? Directly, I have to say no, but as you said, he hadn't been read his rights nor did he have his attorney present when he answered. Can any of the people that heard his confession repeat it in court? I'm going to say that would be up to the discretion of the judge and whether or not his attorney objects to it being hearsay or not. I'm guessing Justin would have his father as his attorney, so he might object to it. If the judge allows it, I'm sure it would go to appeal and they might overturn it. I've always thought that Justin's dad would get him off, but Cooper is screwed.

Interesting -- sounds like a good book. In applying the so-called The "rule against hearsay," hearsay is often defined as something like "an out-of-court statement, offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted therein." As such, we could be talking about an out-of-court statement by the person who is on the stand, or a statement by someone else.

The complication is that there are so many exceptions: "Your honor, I'm offering it not to prove the truth of the matter, but to impeach credibility, as it is a prior, inconsistent statement." Or, "to refresh the witness's recollection." Or "Your honor, it's an exception to the rule against hearsay because it is a declaration against interest" ....or, "an excited utterance" -- or a "fresh recollection recorded" -- etc. Law students go crazy over this stuff, then in actual practice lawyers find it is largely a matter of what the individual judge will let you get away with, that day.

All of that aside, there is, as Rob points out, a real issue of Miranda warnings, even assuming they are not minors. I forget whether Justin was a law student -- there have been unusual cases where statements of a law student were not excluded, despite him not being warned, on the ground that the student fully knew his rights anyway. Of course the same could be said of any habitual criminal, or indeed anyone who watches a lot of TV, but as far as I know only law students or lawyers run that risk.

Jordan rowe was the lawyer. That was Justin's father. But he clearly states that Justin is 22 in that episode. So the boys are definitely not minors.

That aside, I often wonder the same question. I believe the Miranda warning should have been given before the arrest was even made. And Colombo being as smart as he is does a stupid thing by asking that question