Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Police “Science” In The Interrogation Room: Seventy Years Of Pseudo-Psychological Interrogation Methods To Obtain Inadmissible Confessions, Brian Gallini
School of Law Faculty Publications and Presentations
Nearly all confessions obtained by interrogators nationwide are inadmissible, but nonetheless admitted. In the process, police arrest the wrong suspect and allow the guilty to go free. An unshakeable addiction to pseudo-scientific interrogation methods – initially created in the 1940s – is to blame. The so-called “Reid technique” of interrogation was initially a welcome and revolutionary change from the violent “third degree” method it replaced. But, we no longer live in the 1940s and, not surprisingly, we no longer drive 1940s automobiles, practice early twentieth century medicine, or dial rotary phones. Why, then, are police still using 1940s methods of …
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Crooker: An Early Step Towards Miranda Warnings And The Expansion Of The Fifth Amendment To Pre-Trial Confessions, Helen Y. Chang
Publications
By the middle of the 20th century, police interrogation of criminal suspects had developed into a fine art designed to extract confessions. The use of the “third degree,” otherwise known as the infliction of physical or mental suffering, was not uncommon. “[T]he most frequently utilized interrogation techniques have involved mental and psychological stratagems—trickery, deceit, deception, cajolery, subterfuge, chicanery, wheedling, false pretenses of sympathy, and various other artifices and ploys.” As the United States Supreme Court noted in its famous Miranda v. Arizona decision, this type of police interrogation involved “inherent compulsion,” was “inherently coercive,” “exact[ed] a heavy toll on individual …
Reply To Richard A. Leo And Jon B. Gould, Samuel R. Gross, Barbara O'Brien
Reply To Richard A. Leo And Jon B. Gould, Samuel R. Gross, Barbara O'Brien
Articles
The following is a letter to the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law received from Professors Samuel Gross and Barbara O'Brien, responding to an article published in the Journal in Fall 2009 by Professors Richard Leo and Jon Gould. This letter is followed by a reply from Professors Leo and Gould. Professors Gross and O'Brien did not see the reply prior to the Journal going to press. As we have indicated before, we welcome letters to the Journal from readers on any topic covered in a prior issue. - Editors
Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tenetur Principle In Borderline Cases, Luis E. Chiesa
Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tenetur Principle In Borderline Cases, Luis E. Chiesa
Journal Articles
In this article I examine three borderline cases in which it is not clear whether a confession had been obtained in violation of the nemo tenetur principle (i.e. the rights against self-incrimination and forced inculpation). The case of the false confession presents a situation in which a person made a voluntary confession but the overwhelming evidence pointed to the falsity of the statements. In contrast, the confession obtained in the case of the truth serum is of high probative value. However, it could be argued that the suspect did not voluntarily decide to incriminate himself, given that he confessed when …