Yesterday a South Carolina judge vacated the conviction of a teenager executed for a murder he likely did not commit. The court noted that the boy’s confession appeared coerced and unreliable. The growing awareness of false confessions is encouraging.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a police stop based on the officer’s false believe can lead to a legally valid search. Anything that leads to greater police discretion to detain and interrogate is apt to produce more false confessions.

A recent article in The Economist quotes a judge in New York who believes that American prisons house numerous innocent people: “thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, confessed despite being innocent.” Most false confessions experts (including myself) agree that the several hundred proven false confessions represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Yesterday a North Carolina judge declared innocent and released two men who, on the basis of their coerced false confessions, served 30 years for a murder and rape they did not commit. One of them was on death row much of that time.

False confessions experts unanimously favor videotaping interrogations, but I’ve always said that it’s no panacea. Jennifer Mnookin’s op-ed in today’s New York Times (7/14) helps explain why.

Apparently the five men who (while teenagers) gave false confessions in the Central Park Jogger case have reached a lucrative settlement with New York City.  Their coerced false confessions came a quarter century ago.  Better late than never. 

Last week the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the testimony of false confessions experts is inadmissible.  Given that such experts (including myself) help educate jurors about the counter-intutiive phenomenon of false confessions, this is a regrettable decision.  Contrary to the Court’s reasoning, the expert witness on false confessions does not invade the province of the jury.  To the contrary, he or she offers valuable assistance to the jury, typically sharing knowledge about risky interrogation methods and whether they were used in a given case.  It always remains for the jury to decide, based on all the circumstances, whether a particular confession is reliable.  

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision (disallowing Florida’s IQ cut-off point for defendants to quality for execution) was a welcome development.  At this point, I welcome any limitation on the imposition of capital punishment.  Too many innocent people, including some who gave false confessions, have been on death row. 

The Justice Department has reversed long-time policy about recording interrogations.  Henceforth, the FBI and other federal law enforcement will record most interrogations.  As false confessions experts agree that such a policy is crucial, this is a most welcome development.

Posting has been light lately, in part because of technological issues and in part because I’ve been busy with cases (among other things). Last month I testified in Montana, and the defendant was acquitted of murder. Testimony by false confessions experts can be crucial in educating a jury.