Interrogations and Confessions Flashcards
How do False Confessions occur?
(1) Voluntary False Confessors
(2) Compliant False Confessors
(3) Internalized False Confessors
What are Voluntary False Confessors?
Voluntary False Confessors are suspects who provide false confessions out of a desire for publicity, because they feel guilty about a past crime, or because they are mentally challenged.
What are Compliant False Confessors?
Compliant False Confessors are suspects who confess in order to obtain a benefit such as the avoidance of abuse or mistreatment or to receive favorable consideration at sentencing.
What are Internalized False Confessors?
Internalized False Confessors are suspects who accept the police version of the facts or who fail a lie detector test, which leads them to believe that they actually committed the crime.
Are confessions admissible if they are made under a small degree of compulsion or inducement?
No. To be admissible in evidence, a confession must have been made freely and voluntarily without compulsion or inducement.
Why are involuntary confessions admissible?
They are inadmissible because they violate the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
What is the rule from Arizona v. Fulminante?
There is a two-part test to determine if a confession violates the Due Process clause:
(1) Coercion. The police or government subject the defendant to physical or psychological coercion.
(2) Will to Resist. The coercion overcomes the will of an individual to resist.
What is the rule from Spano v. New York?
Involuntary confessions occur when the defendant’s “will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused.”
What are the factors that the court in Spano v. New York used to reach its holding?
(1) Psychological Abuse (the Police employed a childhood friend to play on the Defendant’s sympathy).
(2) Interrogation (the Defendant was questioned for eight hours at night by fourteen officers and his confession was written down by a skilled and aggressive prosecutor).
(3) Attorney (The Police disregarded the Defendant’s refusal to speak on the advice of counsel and ignored his request to contact his lawyer).
(4) Defendant (The Defendant was twenty-five years of age and had never been subjected to custodial arrest or police interrogation. He had not completed high school and had a psychological disability).
(5) Procedural Irregularity (The Police failed to immediately bring the Defendant before a judge and instead subjected him to interrogation).
(6) Necessity (The Police already possessed eyewitnesses to the shooting and were engaged in securing the evidence required to convict the Defendant rather than in identifying the individual responsible for the crime).
What is the rule from Frazier v. Cupp?
Police are allowed to lie during interrogations unless the action shocks the conscience.
Can Police claim that a suspect’s confederate confessed when in fact, they had not?
Yes. See Frazier v. Cupp.
Can Police claim that a suspect’s fingerprints have been found at a crime scene where none were found?
Yes. See Oregon v. Mathiason.
Can Police claim that incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography exist of the crime scene when both of these things are false?
Yes. See State v. Nightingale.
Can Police fabricate evidence?
No. See Florida v. Cayward.
Can Law Enforcement lie about the Law (e.g., telling someone that they wil lose custody of their children if they don’t confess)?
No.
