Lizzie Borden

Lizzie's inquest testimony was enough to get her charged with murder. Prosecutors couldn't wait for the jury to hear that same incriminating testimony at trial. But there was a serious procedural problem the court had to resolve.

Since Lizzie (this is her police photo) had not been charged with anything at the time of the inquest, she was not allowed to have a lawyer represent her at those proceedings. Neither her lawyer, nor the court, had advised Lizzie of her rights before, or during, the inquest. Each thought the other had taken care of it. Lizzie's rights had therefore been violated. 

At trial, her attorney motioned the court to strike all of her inquest testimony.  If that motion were denied, the jury would hear the defendant's inconsistent, rambling account.  If it were granted, all the problematic testimony would be kept from the jurors.

Occasionally, a lawyer's mistakes can help - instead of harm - a defendant charged with a crime. Such was the case with Lizzie's damaging inquest testimony (when she had been represented by inexperienced counsel).

The court agreed with Lizzie's trial lawyer, George Robinson. Since she had not been advised of her rights before she testified at the inquest, none of that damaging testimony could be used against her at trial.