Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for Truth

Securing a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules? A Comparative Perspective (Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter, eds.) (Forthcoming)

SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 366

36 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2017 Last revised: 13 Sep 2017

See all articles by Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Jenia Iontcheva Turner

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law

Date Written: July 20, 2017

Abstract

Like other criminal justice systems, the U.S. system must balance, on the one hand, enforcing the criminal law and, on the other, protecting individual rights in the process. Reliable fact-finding is a prerequisite to the effective enforcement of criminal law and to just outcomes. Protection of individual rights often promotes reliable fact-finding, as when a ban on involuntary confessions prevents the introduction of unreliable testimony at trial. On occasion, however, the commitment to accurate fact-finding may conflict with individual rights in a particular case. One of the clearest examples of such a conflict occurs when a court must decide whether to admit reliable and probative evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

In the United States, rights that are expressly protected by the Constitution—such as the right to remain silent, the right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure, and the right to counsel—are given more weight in the balance than the state’s need to explore fully the facts in a criminal case. The values of fairness, dignity, privacy, and liberty embodied in these rights frequently outweigh the concern for reliable factfinding. But in deciding how to enforce these constitutional rights, U.S. courts have recognized the relevance of competing interests in the criminal justice system, such as the interest in truthseeking. In deciding whether to exclude evidence, for example, courts have considered whether exclusion is expressly required by the Constitution and whether the benefits of exclusion, such as deterring police misconduct, outweigh its costs to truthseeking.

This report, written for an international research project comparing exclusionary rules for confessions in several countries, examines U.S. constitutional law on admissibility of confessions and discusses the contexts in which the law demands exclusion and contexts in which a cost-benefit analysis has led courts to reject exclusion. The report further explains the justifications and practical effects of exclusionary rules and the public debates surrounding their use.

Keywords: confessions, Miranda, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, exclusionary rule

JEL Classification: K14, K42

Suggested Citation

Turner, Jenia Iontcheva, Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for Truth (July 20, 2017). Securing a Fair Trial Through Exclusionary Rules? A Comparative Perspective (Sabine Gless and Thomas Richter, eds.) (Forthcoming); SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 366. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3006316

Jenia Iontcheva Turner (Contact Author)

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
39
Abstract Views
266
PlumX Metrics
!

Under construction: SSRN citations while be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information