Amicus Brief: Frye Confessions

“It is difficult to prove a causal relationship between permissible investigative and interrogatory deception and testimonial deception.  Police freely admit to deceiving suspects and defendants.  They do not admit to perjury, much less to the rationalization of perjury.  There is evidence, however of the acceptability of perjury as a means to the end of conviction.  The evidence is limited and fragmentary and is certainly not dispositive” (Skolnick, 1982).

In order to comprehend the contribution of psychology to areas of criminal investigation it is important to evaluate research into two of the following areas of criminal investigation: eye witness testimony and offender profiling as well as assess the implications of the findings in the area of criminal investigation. In addition, this essay, with reference to relevant psychological research, discuss how the characteristics of the defendant may influence jury behaviour as well as analyse two psychological influences on the decision making process of juries. In order to improve the efficiency of detection and successful prosecution of crime it is important to underline that in a previous administration, detection of serious crime was poor and eyewitness testimony appeared very unreliable, partly due to standard interview techniques yielding confusing results. It is therefore this essays primary focus is to provide the chief constable with a report explaining how psychologists might be able to improve this situation with a full evaluation of process and evidence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

Wrongful convictions are common in the court-system. In fact, wrongful convictions are not the rare events that you see or hear on televisions shows, but are very common. They stem from some sort of systematic defect that lead to wrongful convictions such as, eyewitness misidentification testimony, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions and incriminating statements, DNA lab errors, false confessions, and informants (2014). Bringing awareness to all these systematic defects, which result in wrongful, is important because it will better adjust the system to avoid making the same mistakes with future cases. However, false confession is not a systematic defect. It does not occur because files were misplaced or a lab technician put one too many drops. False confessions occur because of some of psychological attempt to protect oneself and their family. Thus, the courts responsibility should be to reduce these false confessions.

Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.

Lannin, Kyle Scherr, and Sarah Greathouse. Because false confessions can obscure the serving of justice in a trial, the experiment in this article aimed to examine the physiologic stress responses accompanying interrogation within guilty and innocent suspects. By “interrogating the phenomenology of innocence with theoretical conceptualizations of stress, we hypothesized that innocent suspects experience less stress than guilty suspects in response to accusation and interrogation. (Guyll et al.)” This research examined if resisting confession pressure is associated with stress-related physiologic activity and if innocence was associated with decreased stress-related activity. Findings later proved these hypotheses to be true. Guyll et al. states that “the innocent exhibited less physiologic reactivity to being accused and interrogated than the guilty, thereby suggesting that they perceived less threat and potential harm in the situation. Evidence is provided showing that stress emerges from the perception of being threatened and one may be unable to cope with

Determining a false confession proves difficult due to the multitude of dimensions involved. According to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1985) survey of the literature, there are three main types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. Unlike coerced false confessions, voluntary false confessions arise as a result of someone willingly turning themselves into the police with an account of their crime (McCann, 1998). Voluntary false confessions can result from multiple motives, including an internalized need for punishment or to save someone else’s face. In contrast, coerced false confessions directly result from police interrogations. While coerced-compliant confessions are made to avoid interrogation, escape the stressful situation, or achieve some other reward, coerced-internalized confessions emerge when a suspects begins to

Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)

When questioning witnesses of a crime, detectives may choose a specific technique; one technique is the Reid Technique. The Reid Technique is a multi-step questioning method that pressures the witnesses or the accused to admit to the crime. It is used in North America. According to Professor Brent Snook, a psychologist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, the Reid Technique is “Starsky and Hutch”, where two hot head detectives “beat up” their suspects to encourage them confess (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/). This paper will examine the steps of the Reid Technique, as well as reveal substantial evidence that this technique should be banned. This technique has led to false confessions. Not only does this mean that someone has been punished that isn’t guilty, but it also means the real criminal has not been found and punished. The arguments against the use of this technique are the following:

For a society that is greatly influenced by Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Minds and Bones, a confession of the offender is seen as an ultimate checkmate of the case because it implies the guilt of the confessor. Thus, a confession, especially the ones with detailed account and perfect representation of emotions (Leo, 2008), outweighs the evidences of innocence and stirs the case against the accused (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). People believe that they are open-minded about the possibility of false confession but in reality, the public, law enforcers and justice officials have biases that often infer guilt to the suspect instead of investigating for the truth, which leads to wrongful conviction. According to Leo and Drizin (2004), false confession is the primary cause of law miscarriage (Leo and Drizzin, 2004). False confessors lived many years in jail before being exonerated while others remain imprisoned (Leo and Drizzin, 2004).

In this article, Richard Leo examines false confession cases, investigating the wonder of false confessions, the effect of confessional proof, and the reasons for false confessions. Police interrogations can be intimidating to people who are in desperate situations. Some people are bullied into making false confessions and end up getting convicted, even though they are innocent. If the Court convicts someone using testimonies and confessions, the defendant didn’t get the right to a fair trial.

Through different tactics and implied emotions, police interrogations can lead to incorrect convictions. Kennis’s article goes into each individual reason suspects feel their only option is to admit to a crime they had no part in. Whether a sense of guilt or forced confessions, it explains just how these confessions occur. This article includes examples of crimes innocent people claimed to have committed for a variety of reasons. It explains each reason and helps readers better understand exactly how an innocent person could say they committed a crime. This article develops a full explanation that helps readers understand exactly what goes on inside interrogation rooms that lead to innocent people giving a false

Assessment psychology has examined individuals who are criminal offenders who were evaluated to determine their personalities to which they have a long history with. Approximately well over a century ago, Münsterberg, 1908, Vaccaro & Hogan, 2004 who are all psychologists has managed a improved study on criminal offenders that will allow us all to have an ambiguous understanding of how the process of his research in reference to the criminal offenders testimony in court cases. In the 20th century the personality assessment was established, which was generally exercised to govern a component for personality in criminals (Symonds, 1934). During court cases in 1942 adults and juveniles were introduced to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) which was disclosed that same year. Psychologists Archer, Stredny, & Zoby, (2006); Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, and Handel (2006); Borum and Grisso (1995); and Lally (2003) was flabbergasted to find how accurate the MMPI–2 presented itself, which was ultimately the most universally piece of equipment acknowledged and used as evidence for criminals, that calculated their personalities in forensic assessments. The MMPI was authenticated well in the 70’s which everyone employed extensively as solid foundation in correctional settings as well as the use in forensic psychologists.

A confession is one of the strongest forms of evidence that can be brought into a court of law. In the United States criminal justice system, prosecutors quickly and swiftly seek confessions as they are the most persuasive evidence to win cases. Interrogations are conducted by law enforcement officials in an effort to seek confessions and develop details about crimes.Communication is key to the art of interrogation. Detectives sometimes end up with false confessions from innocent suspects by using their expertise in psychological manipulation. One major technique of interrogation is known as the Reid Technique. The Reid method is a system of interviewing and interrogation that is widely used by police departments in the United States. The Reid Technique involves three components which include factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation. Whether this verbal technique is effective or ineffective is a subjective and controversial matter. However, many people who oppose the Reid Technique would agree that this method can cause an innocent person to confess to wrong counts made against them. Is the Reid Technique the best solution? With concrete evidence, one can explore and come to an overall result of whether or not this questioning method has a major impact on the outcome of the confession, as well as searching for weaknesses in human nature and if these have any effect on the results of the interrogation and courtroom process.

This paper discusses the different roles that are taken on by a forensic psychologist, and how those roles interact and affect each other and how the psychologist is about to do his/her job. It looks briefly at the history of the field. We discuss the forensic psychologist as the consultant, the therapist, the researcher, as well as the expert witness. This paper also discusses predicting dangerousness and whether or not an expert can predict dangerousness. Finally we look at conflicting roles and ethics in the field.