“Those
not actually living in jurisdictions that enthusiastically support capital punishment might not understand the mentality that
frequent executions help to create. . . . The killing of any criminal is unnecessary. Once they are caught, tried
and convicted the only reason for executing anyone is to satisfy our own need for vengeance, and once those bloodthirsty hounds
are loosed we are all in danger. As the old saying goes, vengeance is like drinking poison and expecting the other person
to die.”
A defense attorney
who has had success getting confessions suppressed writes me to ask that the following advice be passed along to the defense
bar:
“Two points to be made
when the Reid method is deployed by the police: 1. Consider hiring a psychologist to examine your client's vulnerability to
pressure; 2. Get copies of the Reid training manuals in discovery. The method of interrogation can then become the focus
of the trial . . . .”
I would add that one
can also retain a false confessions expert (in those jurisdictions that permit them) to testify about the tendency of the
Reid technique to produce false confessions.
My very first post on this website was about Marty Tankleff, whose case involves one of the great injustices in the annals of false confessions. As the message from a visitor below indicates, Marty’s
supporters won’t give up. I find this message ((from a former policeman no less) heartening in another respect as well: It
recognizes the progress we’re making in educating the public on this issue.
“I am an advocate for
Marty Tankleff along with many others in SuffolkCounty.
We eagerly await Marty's presentation to the NY State Appellate Court but are cautiously optimistic. We have seen injustice
after injustice continue to be perpetrated purely for political expediency and a way to avoid taking responsibility for the
worst scandal in SuffolkCounty
history and one of the most egregious wrongful convictions and false confession cases anywhere in the country. I say
this as an experienced investigator with the NY State Police where I spent over 23 years. I put a lot of people in prison
but they belong there. Marty doesn't. I can't say how valuable the Internet has been in advocating for those like
Marty. The mainstream media has dropped the ball for a variety of reasons (one being that they depend on access to the
police departments and prosecutors for news). . . . I and many others have been converted due to the Internet
with websites like yours that can tell the unvarnished truth which isn't watered down for political correctness.”
Earlier
this month an Alabama trial court granted the government's motion to exclude psychiatric testimony that
the defendant, who claims she confessed falsely, is mentally retarded. The Court reasoned that expert testimony would be admissible
only if it "specifically addresses how the conditions of interrogation or other circumstances could cause her confession in
this case to be involuntary or false."
The irony is that quite a few courts prevent false confession experts from
testifying about exactly that. They claim that allowing the expert to explain how circumstances call into question the reliability
of the confession invades the province of the jury. So it goes: defendants who wish to challenge their confession with expert
testimony are told that such testimony is too specific or not specific enough. To be sure, many courts do allow false confession
expert testimony (though some of them significantly limit its scope). All courts should. It's bad enough that jurors strongly
intuit that an innocent person would not confess. The problem is compounded when jurors are denied insight and information
to correct their false intuition.
Last week a federal court in Kansas court rejected a defendant's contention that his confession was coerced. The court
noted his argument that "the police enticed him to confess by helping him create his false confession, sympathizing with him,
and refusing to let him tell his side of the story. [He further] claims police told him if he confessed, they would tell the
prosecutor and help him. Even accepting these allegations as true, they are insufficient to show a coercive environment sufficient
to render Petitioner's statements involuntary."
That's three heavy sentences. The first two describe interrogative
practice known to induce false confessions, and the third says too bad.
Earlier this month a court of appeals in California rejected a defendant’s contention that the confession he
was tricked into giving should not have been admitted into evidence.The court
noted that the officer “used one of his common interrogation techniques by placing some blame on the victim.”A bit later, he “used another common interview technique called a fictional fantasy.” I needn’t go into
detail about this sordid technique. Suffice to say that the court termed the various techniques “ruses,” but was unbothered
because the officer merely “used common interview interrogation techniques that he was trained to use on any suspect.”
Exactly, and therein lies the problem. Perhaps the Court doesn’t know what all false confessions
experts know all too well: the common interrogation techniques that police are trained to use on any suspect work too well:
they elicit confessions from the innocent as well as the guilty.
Another visitor responded to my recent post about prosecutorial misconduct in the Duke
lacrosse case:
“This
injustice has consequences for persons of all races, religions and creeds. I hope and pray that we are energized to make
changes that prevent such prosecutorial misconduct. The voters of Durham have the opportunity to send Nifong packing.”
Alas, Mike Nifong, the lead perpetrator of the injustice, was reelected on Tuesday.
Remember the wild case of Amy Yates, a girl murdered in Georgia?A teenage boy confessed, but was eventually released from a juvenile facility when
another teenager confessed.Unfortunately, the second confessor, who is mentally
impaired and has a history of mental illness, later retracted his confession. Last
week, the grand jury indicted the second confessor. The scary thing is that, according to news accounts, the district attorney
admits that the only evidence against him is his confession.Teenage boys with
serious cognitive deficiencies are not likely to commit the perfect murder. We need to know more about this case to be sure,
but the absence of corroborating evidence makes me wonder if this indictment is justified.
In response to my recent post about the Duke lacrosse case, a visitor writes: “Yes, justice
delayed is justice denied. This case should never have moved past the police blotter.”
True enough, and suggestive of another area where it’s crucial for prosecutors to maintain
the highest professional standards: the screening of cases to see which merit going forward.
Last week a judge in Florida
tossed out the confession of a mentally retarded man.The Miami Herald reports
the basis for the judge’s ruling: “the police officers who took it coached him about what to say, led him to believe he could
go home if he said he killed the child by accident and failed to fully investigate the case.”
The judge spotted a triple threat. Alas,
all three aspects of the misconduct cited – coaching, telling the suspect he can go home if he confesses, and failure to investigate
– are recurring aspects of false confessions cases.
My very first post on this website was about Marty Tankleff, whose case involves one of the great injustices in the annals of false confessions. As the message from a visitor below indicates, Marty’s
supporters won’t give up. I find this message ((from a former policeman no less) heartening in another respect as well: It
recognizes the progress we’re making in educating the public on this issue.
Last week a federal court in 
Earlier this month a court of appeals in