A Cup of Coffee After the Waterboard: Seemingly Voluntary Post-Abuse Statements
Gregory S. McNeal
Pepperdine University School of Law; Pepperdine University - School of Public Policy
July 9, 2010
DePaul Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 943, 2010
This symposium article focuses on the impact that abusive and coercive interrogation techniques will have on the admissibility of statements derived from non-abusive, non-coercive interviews. Were subsequent, legal, and humane interviews indelibly impacted by the "taint of torture" regardless of how they were conducted? Accordingly, are statements made in those subsequent non-coercive settings inadmissible on voluntariness grounds? This article first details the coercive interrogation techniques authorized against suspected terrorists detained in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Next, the article details the changing circumstances of detainee custody and treatment to set the stage for a discussion of whether earlier abuses, if corroborated, will invalidate subsequent statements made by the victims of that abuse. I explain how the U.S. government, recognizing that its earlier interrogation tactics may have jeopardized its legal case against the detainees implemented "clean teams." Building off of these factual premises, I next synthesize the tests a judge will need to apply in order to determine the admissibility of seemingly voluntary post-abuse statements. In this synthesis I highlight how factors such as the time between statements, change in location, change in identity of interrogators, nature of the previous unlawful interrogation methods, and use of illegally procured statements as leverage in obtaining new statements each impact the admissibility analysis.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 36
Keywords: KSM, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,coercion, coercive interrogation, admissibility, taint of torture, cat out of the bag, totality of the circumstances, terrorism, guantanamo, waterboard, voluntariness, voluntary, involuntary, interviews, admissibility, inadmissible, how long does the taint of torture last
Date posted: January 9, 2011 ; Last revised: May 2, 2014
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.328 seconds