Confessing To Breaking The Law: What Happens Next?

Confessions can create a lot of problems for the defense lawyer, as many jurors believe that no innocent person would ever confess to a crime they didn't commit. However, false confessions are more common than one might think. In fact, in a 2013 amicus brief, the APA noted that standard police procedure is a risk factor for eliciting false confessions. Confessions can be suppressed under certain circumstances, such as if the suspect was a minor without a lawyer or parent present, or if the suspect was intoxicated at the time of confession. In the case of a priest hearing a confession, the seal of confession forbids them from sharing this information with anyone.

Police interrogation tactics

• Good Cop, Bad Cop: One officer takes on an aggressive tone, making the suspect uncomfortable, while the other acts in a friendly manner, offering leniency or pretending to care about the suspect's well-being. Both officers are working together to get a confession, and their kindness is a tactic, not a genuine offer of help.
• Lying About Evidence: Police officers may lie about having fingerprints, DNA, or other physical evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene. This tactic is often used to break down resistance and push the suspect to confess out of fear or hopelessness.
• Promising Leniency: Officers may suggest that confessing will result in reduced charges or a lighter sentence, even though they don't have the authority to guarantee these outcomes.
• Exhausting Interrogations: Interrogations may be long and exhausting, with officers keeping suspects in the room for hours to wear them down mentally and physically. This increases the likelihood of the suspect saying something to end the situation.
• Minimization and Rationalization: Officers may downplay the seriousness of the crime to coax a confession, making it seem like confessing is not as harmful as the suspect might think. However, a confession can lead to serious legal consequences.
• Leading Questions: Police may ask leading questions, such as "Did you see the man with a beard holding a gun?" This type of question assumes that a particular statement is true and can lead the suspect to answer affirmatively, regardless of whether they know it to be true or not.
• Polygraph Tests: Suspects may be convinced to take a polygraph test to prove their innocence. Even if they pass, officers may lie and tell them they failed, using this as leverage to intimidate or coax a confession.
• Accomplice Confession: If another individual is arrested or questioned with the suspect, officers may claim that they confessed, even if this is not true. If the suspect falls for this tactic and confesses, their confession may be considered admissible in court.
• Verbal and Emotional Intimidation: Officers may yell, throw papers, or use other tactics to scare and intimidate the suspect.
• False Statements: Officers may make various false statements, such as claiming to have turned off the recording or that anything the suspect says is off the record. They may also lie about having evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, or claim that a prosecutor will prosecute the suspect more harshly if they do not talk.
• Threatening Family Members: Investigators may threaten to call Child Protection Services or make family members accessories to crimes they did not commit. This tactic is not illegal unless physical or mental harm is directly done to the family.
• Heightened Anger and Emotion: Investigators may use anger and aggression, such as slamming fists on the table or conveying a sense of physical confrontation, to scare individuals into confessing, even if they are innocent.
• Leaving Suspects Alone: Officers may leave the room and leave the suspect alone for extended periods, hoping that they will unknowingly make incriminating statements or ask questions that may be construed as an admission of guilt.

False confessions

There are several reasons why someone might give a false confession:

• Mental illness or disability: Voluntary false confessions are typically the result of a mental illness or disorder. For example, an individual may falsely confess due to a pathological desire for notoriety or a need for self-punishment stemming from guilt over prior transgressions.
• Psychological abuse by the interrogator: Interrogation techniques can include psychological abuse, such as overzealous tactics, lying, or pretending to be a friend and ally. This can wear down the suspect, especially after a lengthy interrogation, leading them to doubt their memory and, in some cases, even their sanity.
• Physical abuse or threats of abuse: Some interrogators may use physical violence or threats of violence to coerce a confession.
• To end a lengthy interrogation: A suspect may confess simply to put an end to a stressful and prolonged interrogation, believing that their confession will result in their release from custody or lesser charges and penalties.
• To cover up another person's involvement: In some cases, individuals falsely confess to protect the actual perpetrator, often a loved one or someone they wish to shield from punishment.
• To get a favorable plea bargain: Suspects may believe they cannot get a fair trial and, therefore, confess to receive a more lenient sentence.
• Suggestibility and compliance: Certain individuals are more susceptible to interrogation techniques, such as juveniles, individuals with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, and those with certain personality disorders or psychopathologies.

To prevent false confessions, some states have implemented reforms such as recording the entire interrogation, limiting the duration of interrogations, and banning the use of polygraphs and voice-stress analysis. It is also recommended that lying by interrogators be strictly limited and that implicit promises of leniency and hypothesizing blackout scenarios be prohibited.

Waiving Miranda Rights

When an officer arrests or detains an individual for interrogation, they are obligated to inform the suspect of their Miranda rights. This includes the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Officers must also inform suspects that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Suspects can choose to waive their Miranda rights, but this waiver must be voluntary, intelligent, and knowing. In other words, the suspect must make a free and deliberate choice to give up their rights without coercion or intimidation from law enforcement. The government must also ensure that the suspect fully understands the nature of the rights they are giving up and the potential consequences.

It is important to note that a waiver of Miranda rights is not permanent. Suspects can revoke their waiver and invoke their Miranda rights at any point during questioning. Law enforcement officials should cease interrogation once the suspect invokes their rights. However, any statements made by the suspect before invoking their rights can still be used as evidence against them.

Courts will closely review the circumstances of a waiver to ensure that the defendant understood their rights and that the police did not use coercive tactics to obtain the waiver. The validity of a waiver is determined by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the suspect's age, education, mental condition, and language barriers.

In summary, while individuals have the right to waive their Miranda rights, it is crucial that they do so voluntarily and with a full understanding of the implications. The courts and law enforcement must uphold the integrity of the waiver process to protect the rights of suspects during criminal investigations.

Police lying about evidence

In the US, police officers are legally allowed to lie about evidence during interrogations to obtain a confession. This practice is supported by the 1969 Supreme Court case, Frazier v. Cupp, which ruled that specific police lies were permissible. In this case, the police falsely told the suspect that his associate had already confessed, leading the suspect to also confess. The Court decided that this lie alone was not enough to make the confession involuntary or violate the suspect's Constitutional rights.

Since this ruling, there have been no laws established to set clear boundaries on what interrogation lies are appropriate and what lies are unethical. Police are generally allowed to verbally make false statements about evidence, lie about the seriousness of an offence or the likely punishment, make unfulfillable promises of leniency for waiving rights, lie about what others have told them or what evidence reveals, and threaten charges against or harsher punishment for family members.

However, there are some things police officers cannot lie about. They cannot lie about your legal rights, pretend to be your lawyer, or claim to have a warrant when they do not.

If you are taken into custody, the police are required to read you your Miranda rights, which include your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If the police fail to inform you of these rights before questioning, any statement you make may be excluded from court. Even after being read your rights, you can continue to invoke your right to remain silent and request an attorney. If the police continue to question you after you have asserted these rights, anything you say may be deemed inadmissible in court.

If you are questioned by the police, it is important to remain calm and assert your rights. You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Do not answer any questions or make any statements without legal representation. If you are unsure of what to do, request a lawyer immediately.

Impact on judicial process

Impact on the Judicial Process

A confession can have a significant impact on the judicial process and the outcome of a case. While a confession is a strong piece of evidence, it is important to note that it is not always accurate and can be retracted or challenged in court. Confessions can be influenced by various factors, including coercion, remorse, self-preservation, or a desire to come clean.

Admissibility of Confessions

The admissibility of a confession as evidence varies across different jurisdictions. In some places, like New York, there are specific laws and requirements that law enforcement must follow when obtaining a confession. For example, they may be required to record video footage of the confession, including the Miranda warning, the identities of those present, and time and date stamps. However, loopholes may exist, allowing for potential abuse or manipulation.

Involuntary Confessions

A confession may be deemed involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible if it was obtained through unlawful means or duress. Circumstances that may lead to a confession being classified as involuntary include invoking the right to an attorney, physical threats or harm, denial of basic needs like food or bathroom access, excessive interrogation duration, or the influence of drugs or alcohol impairing the suspect's ability to think clearly.

False Confessions

False confessions are a real phenomenon, and various factors can contribute to an individual confessing to a crime they did not commit. The standard police interrogation process itself is considered a risk factor for eliciting false confessions. Additionally, certain individuals may be more susceptible to giving false confessions, such as minors without legal representation or individuals with mental or learning challenges that impact their understanding of their rights.

Expert Testimonies

If a confession cannot be suppressed, expert witnesses can be called upon to testify about the unreliability of confessions as evidence. They can provide insights into the psychology behind false confessions and explain to the jury why innocent people may confess, mitigating the potential damage caused by the confession.

Plea Bargaining

Confessions can also influence plea bargaining processes. Defendants may plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit in exchange for a more lenient sentence or to avoid a lengthy trial. While this practice is common, it is important to note that it can result in individuals taking responsibility for crimes they did not commit.

Frequently asked questions