Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Disputed Interrogation Techniques in America: True and False Confessions and the Estimation and Valuation of Type I and II Errors

in Sarah Cooper, ed., Controversies in Innocence Cases in America (Ashgate Publishing 2014).

Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2013-27

16 Pages Posted: 2 Jul 2013 Last revised: 26 Jun 2014

Deborah Davis

University of Nevada, Reno

Richard A. Leo

University of San Francisco - School of Law

Michael J. Williams

Georgia State University

Date Written: June 1, 2013

Abstract

American studies of wrongful conviction have revealed a disturbing pattern. For roughly 25 percent of such cases the defendant was wrongfully convicted in part as the result of a false confession or false guilty plea. In this chapter, we first discuss the evidence that false confessions are a problem. We then review the causes of false confession, with emphasis on police interrogation techniques and interrogation-induced false confession. In this context, we discuss the specific interrogation techniques most strongly implicated in the production of false confessions, as well as specific reforms widely suggested by interrogation scholars to reduce the incidence of interrogation-induced false confession. Finally, the main body of the chapter addresses the issue of how the courts have treated the difficult issues raised by the undeniable problem of false confession and the role of coercive interrogation practices in producing them. Specifically, we address the courts’ rulings regarding the acceptability of specific interrogation practices and the conditions under which a confession is to be regarded as “voluntary” and hence admissible as evidence in trial.

Keywords: criminal law, wrongful conviction, false confession, police interrogation, criminal justice, law enforcement, criminal procedure

Suggested Citation

Davis, Deborah and Leo, Richard A. and Williams, Michael J., Disputed Interrogation Techniques in America: True and False Confessions and the Estimation and Valuation of Type I and II Errors (June 1, 2013). in Sarah Cooper, ed., Controversies in Innocence Cases in America (Ashgate Publishing 2014).; Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2013-27. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2288207

Deborah Davis

University of Nevada, Reno ( email )

Reno, NV 89557
United States

Richard A. Leo (Contact Author)

University of San Francisco - School of Law ( email )

2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
United States

Michael J. Williams

Georgia State University ( email )

25 Park Place
Atlanta, GA 30303
United States

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.linkedin.com/in/mickwilliamsphd

Paper statistics

Downloads
430
Rank
55,371
Abstract Views
2,160