Admissibility

Attorneys often ask me about the admissibility of expert testimony on false confessions. The short answer is that it depends on the judge and jurisdiction, but such testimony is increasingly deemed admissible. I personally have been qualified as a false confessions expert in a dozen states.

Actual Innocence

Julie Seaman is author of an important op-ed in today’s New York Times, titled “When Innocence Is No Defense.”  The article discusses how the wrongly convicted often remain incarcerated even after they are exonerated by DNA or other evidence.  This is particularly true of people convicted based on false confessions.

Unsigned, Unwelcome

As noted in today’s New York Times (July 21), a series of unsigned Supreme Court opinions this term has made it more difficult for prisoners to challenge their convictions. Given that we’ve learned that wrongful convictions (many based on false confessions) are surprisingly widespread, this development is most unwelcome.

Progress

A New York Times article (2/27) on a man’s challenge to a confession he gave in 1991 is cause to reflect on progress made in protecting against false confessions. The article notes that the man’s interrogation was not recorded. These days, interrogations are increasingly recorded. The article also notes that the man’s efforts to reopenContinue reading “Progress”

Good Decision

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down state bans on prisoners growing beards. While not directly related to false confessions, this decision is welcome. Policies dictating more humane treatment of persons held in custody (whether prisoners or suspects) will, in the long run, modify the mindset and environment that contribute to false confessions.