Evidence Commons^™

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …

The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus

Michigan Law Review

Confession law is in a state of collapse. Fifty years ago, three different doctrines imposed constitutional limits on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: Miranda doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, Massiah doctrine under the Sixth Amendment, and voluntariness doctrine under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted Miranda and Massiah, effectively leaving suspects with only voluntariness doctrine to protect them during police interrogations. The voluntariness test is a notoriously vague case-by-case standard. In this Article, I argue that if voluntariness is going to be the framework for …

The Admissibility Of Confessions Compelled By Foreign Coercion: A Compelling Question Of Values In An Era Of Increasing International Criminal Cooperation, Geoffrey S. Corn, Kevin Cieply

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article proceeds on a simple and clear premise: a confession extracted by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment should never be admitted into evidence in a U.S. criminal trial. Whether accomplished through extending the Due Process or Self-Incrimination based exclusionary rules to foreign official coercion, or by legislative action, such exclusion is necessary to align evidentiary practice regarding confessions procured by foreign agents with our nation's fundamental values as reflected in the Fifth Amendment and our ratification of the CAT. This outcome is not incompatible with Connelly. Rather, this Article explores the limits of the Court's language in …

Putting The Cat Back In The Bag: Involuntary Confessions And Self-Incrimination, Joseph A. Iemma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Empty Promises: Miranda Warnings In Noncustodial Interrogations, Aurora Maoz

Michigan Law Review

You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at the state's expense. In 2010, the Supreme Court declined an opportunity to resolve the question of what courts should do when officers administer Miranda warnings in a situation where a suspect is not already in custody-in other words, when officers are not constitutionally required to give or honor these warnings. While most courts have found a superfluous warning to be …

Accomplice Confessions And The Confrontation Clause: Crawford V. Washington Confronts Past Issues With A New Rule, Kjirstin Graham

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proposal To Reverse The View Of A Confession: From Key Evidence Requiring Corroboration To Corroboration For Key Evidence, Boaz Sangero, Mordechai Halpert

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Both case law and legal literature have recognized that all, and not just clearly statistical, evidence is probabilistic. Therefore, we have much to learn from the laws of probability with regard to the evaluation of evidence in a criminal trial. The present Article focuses on the confession. First, we review legal and psychological literature and show that the probability of a false confession and, consequently, a wrongful conviction, is far from insignificant. In light of this, we warn against the cognitive illusion, stemming from the fallacy of the transposed conditional, which is liable to mislead the trier of fact in …

Reliability, Justice And Confessions: The Essential Paradox, Russell L. Weaver

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This paper deals with the issue of "reliability" in the criminal justice process, and the rising number of wrongful convictions that have been identified in recent years. Using modern evidentiary techniques, a rising number of individuals have been found "innocent" of the crimes for which they have been convicted. These instances of wrongful conviction have involved individuals who spent time on death row, awaiting execution, only to be completely exonerated. There are various reasons for these wrongful convictions, including prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failures such as inadequate indigent representation. This paper focuses on another systemic failure: difficulties with the confessions …

"So I Says To "The Guy,' I Says...": The Constitutionality Of Neutral Pronoun Redaction In Multidefendant Criminal Trials, Bryan M. Shay

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Accomplices' Confessions And The Confrontation Clause, Welsh S. White

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The admissibility of an accomplice's confession against a criminal defendant has long been a subject of concern in Anglo-American law. The Supreme Court has held that accomplices' confessions to the police are presumptively unreliable under the Confrontation Clause, without clearly expressing what facts would lend to the reliability of such statements. However, Professor White argues that in Williamson v. United States, the Court adopted an empirical framework that will make such confessions more likely to be admissible against an accused.

In this Article, Professor White first explores the traditional skepticism towards accomplices' confessions and explains the nature of the current …

When The Constable Blunders: A Comparison Of The Law Of Police Interrogation In Canada And The United States, Robert Harvie, Hamar Foster

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores the Supreme Court of Canada's use of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in limiting police interrogations and compares its case decisions with cases from the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II of this Article examines the purposes and policies underlying sections 10(b), 7, and 24(2) of the Charter. Part III then examines the application of sections 10(b) and 7 in situations where (1) suspects are interrogated by uniformed police officers or other persons known to be in authority, and (2) suspects are interrogated surreptitiously by persons not known to be in authority. In both …

Police-Obtained Evidence And The Constitution: Distinguishing Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence From Unconstitutionally Used Evidence, Arnold H. Loewy

Michigan Law Review

The article will consider four different types of police-obtained evidence: evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation, confessions and lineup identifications obtained in violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel, and coerced confessions. My conclusions are that evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search and seizure is excluded because of the police misconduct by which it was obtained. On the other hand, evidence obtained from a Miranda violation is (or ought to be) excluded because use of that evidence compromises the defendant's procedural right not to be compelled to be a witness against …

18 U.S.C. § 3501 And The Admissibility Of Confessions Obtained During Unnecessary Prearraignment Delay, Matthew W. Frank

Michigan Law Review

Part I thus argues that the admissibility of post-sixth-hour confessions is governed by Mallory, under which a voluntary confession is inadmissible if, but only if, it follows a period of unnecessary delay. Part II addresses a possible objection to this conclusion - namely, that, with limited exceptions, subsection 350l(c) renders all post-sixth hour confessions inadmissible without regard to the reasonableness of the prearraignment delay. This interpretation is derived by negative implication from the proviso in subsection 350l(c) and would require courts to suppress confessions even though there has been no unnecessary delay, and even though the confessions would be …

The Right To An In Camera Voluntariness Hearing: State V. Sanders, Ellen Carle Lilly

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Custodial Police Interrogation In Our Nation's Capital: The Attempt To Implement Miranda, Richard J. Medalie, Leonard Zeitz, Paul Alexander

Michigan Law Review

In his attempt to define the meaning of democracy, Carl Becker, looking back to Plato's view of society, observed that "[a]ll human institutions, we are told, have their ideal forms laid away in heaven, and we do not need to be told that the actual institutions conform but indifferently to these ideal counterparts." Becker's observation may well set the perspective from which to view what occurred when the attempt was made in the District of Columbia to implement the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona.

Extrajudicial Criminal Confessions In Indiana: Changes In The Law Of Admissibility

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

State Criminal Confession Cases: Subsequent Developments In Cases Reversed By U.S. Supreme Court And Some Current Problems, Wilfred J. Ritz

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Twenty-Five Years Of State Criminal Confession Cases In The U. S. Supreme Court, Wilfred J. Ritz

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Evidence Problems In Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Ronald J. Harpst

Cleveland State Law Review

Some of the most perplexing problems facing the attorney defending a child charged with a delinquency have their inception in misunderstandings, lack of uniformity and loose application of evidential rules. In order to serve the best interests of the children who are before it, and to obtain necessary facts with which to formulate a rehabilitation plan, the courts have a tendency to waive strict adherence to evidence rules. The methodical attorney wonders how the court can serve the best interests of the child and yet seemingly not afford to the child the equal protection of its laws of evidence.

Corroboration Of Confessions In Federal And Military Trials, Gilbert G. Ackroyd

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Third Degree--Its Historical Background, The Present Law And Recommendations, Charles Richard Doyle

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Evidence-Invalidity Under Due Process Clause Of Convictions Based On Confessions Obtained By Duress

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Denial Of Due Process By Use Of Coerced Confessions

Indiana Law Journal

Recent Cases: Constitutional Law

Evidence--Recent Developments (A Service For Returning Veterans), John E. Tracy

Michigan Law Review

The developments in the law of evidence in the war years have not been great. They have been mainly along the lines of tests for witnesses, the use of confessions in criminal cases, the interpretation by the courts of the so-called "Business Entries" Act and the adoption by the American Law Institute of a proposed Code of Evidence.

Evidence-Police Regulation By Rules Of Evidence, John Barker Waite

Michigan Law Review

The judicial rules of Evidence, said their great expounder, "were never meant to be an indirect process of punishment." Yet twice the Supreme Court has promulgated new rules of evidence for precisely that purpose. The rule that evidence is inadmissible, regardless of its relevance and materiality, if it was obtained by unreasonable search was first suggested by Justice Bradley, who wrote the majority opinion in Boyd v. United States in 1886. The other rule was voiced in 1943 by Justice Frankfurter, writing the majority opinion in McNabb v. United States. And each rule demonstrates the inherent evil of judicial …

Criminal Law And Procedure-Admissibility Of Evidence-Rule As To Determination Of Preliminary Question Of Fact

Michigan Law Review

Following his arrest for murder, the defendant was held thirty-six hours before being arraigned for the purpose of obtaining a confession. On trial the defendant objected to introduction of the confession on the ground that it was involuntary, having been induced by wrongful detention and beating by the police. Held, failure, after due request, to instruct the jury that unnecessary delay in arraignment is prohibited by law and that such delay might be considered in determining whether or not the confession was voluntary was reversible error. People v. Alex, (N. Y. 1934) 192 N. E. 289.

Evidence - Privileged Communication

Michigan Law Review

In a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, a Luthern clergyman refused to testify concerning a disclosure made to him in his religious capacity by the defendant husband, on the ground that it was a privileged communication under the Minnesota statute. The district court adjudged him in contempt of court. Upon certiorari to the supreme court of Minnesota, held, the communication was privileged, and the order was reversed. In re Swenson (Minn. 1931) 237 N.W. 589.