On False Confessions

[Compassionate Reader]

Here is yet another excellent article about false confessions:

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/37/3/344

Please take special note of the conclusion.

 

[iluvmua]

Compassionate Reader: Since I just passed my Evidence Final I can tell you that the exception to the hearsay rule is a party admission - a party to the action admits something; it's one of approximately 28 exceptions to hearsay. It may also be declaration against interest if the person is not a party.

Puffin: I suggest you grab a law review journal and see the volumes of articles written and studies conducted that concur it is nearly impossible for juries to NOT notice and be biased when the defendant does not testify. Mendez has authored a few and if I can find them online I'll post a link.

Some defense counsel don't even want the judge to instruct the jury that they may not infer anything from the fact that the defendant does not testify because it just highlights it further!

Our system is imperfect but it is not supposed to be about perfection, it's supposed to be about resolving the conflict...did they do it or not?

I'm sure most jurors take their civic duty very seriously, however they are human beings. Some jurors lie and take matters into their own hands or simply disregard the judge's admonitions. It happens.

If any of these jurors concealed information or lied then injustice has occurred. I want the court to take it seriously because if they don't, then the next time it could be you or me or someone we love getting shafted. If you are so sure they are guilty and that there was enough evidence to convict in the first trial, then you should not fear either the testing of new evidence or the grant of a new trial. Hopefully you support the very important right of due process and the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Testing of new "Evidence" will not prove anything...... just that their DNA was not at the crime scene.

It will not get them out of Prison and Damien out of a death sentence.

It's BS Smoke and Mirrors from the Defense and the supporters and it has been for the last 18 years.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Testing of new "Evidence" will not prove anything...... just that their DNA was not at the crime scene.

It will not get them out of Prison and Damien out of a death sentence.

It's BS Smoke and Mirrors from the Defense and the supporters and it has been for the last 18 years.

I'm not sure to what or whom you're responding with this statement. This thread is about false confessions. I just posted a link to yet another article that specifically mentions developmentally disabled individuals, like Jessie, as being some of the most prone to false confessions.

As to your statement, let's see what December brings, shall we? One thing, though. If the DNA of the WM3 is not at the discovery ditch yet the DNA of other individuals, two of whom have been tentatively identified, is there, doesn't that indicate that another person or other people just might be the guilty party or parties?

 

[justthinkin]

CR, pose your dna question

"If the DNA of the WM3 is not at the discovery ditch yet the DNA of other individuals, two of whom have been tentatively identified, is there, doesn't that indicate that another person or other people just might be the guilty party or parties?"

under a new topic, and let's discuss it, since it, too, has nothing to do with false confessions.

I have to run some errands, but will get back to you on it.

 

[JBounds]

I haven't really read through this thread but I remember a case involving the murder of Stephanie Crowe. Her brother falsely confessed because the authorities broke him down for several days. He was 14 at the time and he said that they got to him so much that he didn't even know what was true anymore.

Eventually they found the real killer, thankfully. False confessions unfortuanatley happen.

As for Jessie Miskelley his was for a sure a false confession.

 

[Cappuccino]

One of Michael Crowe's co-defendants also confessed. And all five of the Central Park Five confessed. False confessions happen a lot, especially when you have a teenager being questioned with no parent present.

A good police officer will take steps to distinguish between false and true confessions, but the WMPD just had no idea how to solve this crime, so they grabbed Jessie's ridiculous confession with both hands like it was some kind of lifeline. Then when a judge told them he couldn't issue warrants on the grounds of a confession so inaccurate they went back and coached and corrected him until they had a statement which matched what they thought was true at the time.

 

[SheBoss]

Can someone help me please?

I haven't read this entire thread (and quite honestly don't want to take the time to do so right now), but I am reading Dr Ofshe's testimony at the MissKelley trial. Am I understanding that the defense put him on the stand to state that JM's confession was coerced and not valid and the Judge ruled that Dr Ofshe's couldn't tell ther jury this was a false, coerced confession? If this is the case, can someone tell me by what law the Court used to disqualify this information? This seems like a relevant witness to me.

Thanks!!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Can someone help me please?

I haven't read this entire thread (and quite honestly don't want to take the time to do so right now), but I am reading Dr Ofshe's testimony at the MissKelley trial. Am I understanding that the defense put him on the stand to state that JM's confession was coerced and not valid and the Judge ruled that Dr Ofshe's couldn't tell ther jury this was a false, coerced confession? If this is the case, can someone tell me by what law the Court used to disqualify this information? This seems like a relevant witness to me.

Thanks!!

I'm posting off the top of my head, but IIRC, the defense wanted Ofshe to testify as to the coerced confession based on his experience with such. They sought to get him qualified as an expert on false confessions. Burnett wouldn't do that and therefore disallowed his testimony as he did part of the testimony of Warren Holmes (I think) who was another polygraph examiner (in fact, he was one of the ones who trained Durham) who would have testified that the WMPD polygrapher, Durham, misread the results of Jessie's polygraph. Holmes would have stated that Jessie was only lying about previous drug use and was telling the truth when he said that he knew nothing about the murders. I'm not sure what rule or law Burnett used to disallow Ofshe's testimony, but he disallowed Holmes' testimony because polygraphs aren't admissible evidence in court. The answer about Ofshe might be in the pretrial hearing. Let me see if I can find it.

ETA: It's in the trial. Burnett allowed him to testify, but there were constant objections from the prosecution. Here's the best answer I can give you from the record as to why Burnett sustained the objections:

THE COURT- Well, I'm going to be honest, gentlemen, I'm real interested in knowing what a sociologist is going to testify to that would aid and benefit the jury and what is the scientific basis of that testimony. It seems to me that you've called this witness to give an opinion that the confession was coerced---

MR. STIDHAM: That is---

THE COURT: ---and that it was involuntary.

MR. STIDHAM: That's exactly right, your Honor.

THE COURT: And I think that -- that's a question for the Jury to decide and I'm not sure I'm going to allow him to testify in that narrow framework. I can see him having value testifying that these are common techniques employed by the police overrides one's free will. I found such and such of these conditions prevailing here and things of that nature, or maybe group dynamics of a cult.

MR. CROW: Your Honor--

THE COURT: But I'm not sure I'm prepared to allow him to testify that in his opinion it's coerced and therefore invalid.

MR. CROW: Your Honor---

THE COURT: I mean, what the hell do we need a jury for?

Basically, Burnett doesn't like the idea of Ofshe (who he never would rule was an expert) stating that it was his opinion that Jessie's statement was coerced or false. Burnett said at another point that he had ruled the statement was voluntary and wasn't going to allow a witness to contradict him on the stand. (Can you say, "Ego trip?")

So, IMO, what Burnett was saying was that whether or not Jessie's statement was coerced was something for the jury to decide. He (Burnett) cited no rule or law for his opinion; he just said that was the way it was going to be. He wouldn't allow a witness to contradict him, and he felt if Ofshe said the statement was coerced, it would undermine his ruling that the statement was voluntary.

I loved the part in the proceeding where Stidham wrote down a question to ask Ofshe, Burnett approved it and then Davis or Fogleman objected to the question that Burnett had approved, saying basically that it was exactly what Burnett had previously ruled he wouldn't allow. Then Burnett, being the idiot that he is, disallowed the very question he had approved seconds before! In short, Ofshe had them by the short and curlies. They knew it, and they used every sort of legal maneuver to try to wriggle out of the situation.

 

[claudicici]

:banghead: god,that trial was just sick....
but then they let their mail order "occult expert" spin his fantasies without limit....

 

[SheBoss]

Thanks so much, CR. The part that you copy/pasted here was the exact part that I was scratching my head over. What I understood the Court to say was "I ruled the statement was voluntary, so someone else is not going to come up here and contradict me".

However, I feel there must have been a statute for it or something because this didn't stick out like a sore thumb in any of JM's appeals. After all, that's what appeals are for - to right any possible bad calls by the judge.

 

[Cappuccino]

It should be, but when the judge hearing all the appeals is the same judge who made all the original bad calls, I don't really have much faith in the appeals process.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It should be, but when the judge hearing all the appeals is the same judge who made all the original bad calls, I don't really have much faith in the appeals process.

Exactly! No matter how many times this case came before Burnett, it was highly unlikely that he would overturn his own decision, or rather the decision in his own court. Likewise, as others have mentioned, getting an appellate court to overturn a lower court's ruling is very difficult, too. Burnett had ruled that Jessie made his statement voluntarily, and he wasn't going to change his mind or allow testimony that contradicted his ruling. Isn't it interesting just how quickly the WMFree were freed when another judge took over the case?

 

[SheBoss]

I had heard all that, but I still don't understand how a judge who presided over the case can hear appeals on the same case? Isn't (wasn't) he just a judge and the appeals court should hear...well...appeals? How does it happen that the same judge is hearing both the case and appeals? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just still trying to knock myself off the fence...

 

[Cappuccino]

That's the law in Arkansas, the trial judge hears all the appeals at circuit court level. His decisions are only reviewed by other judges if they are appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I agree that it's bizarre, but it is what it is. I'm just thankful that Burnett won that Senate seat! Once Laser took over, like I said before, things moved rather rapidly, IMO.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

That's the law in Arkansas, the trial judge hears all the appeals at circuit court level. His decisions are only reviewed by other judges if they are appealed to the Supreme Court.

Well....so much for safeguards. What's the point of even having the circuit court level?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

It does give one pause, doesn't it? It's kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house!

 

[UdbCrzy2]

No takers?

Well, allow me...

Tim Hennis raped and butchered a young mother in 1985. He also butchered her two little girls. Slit their throats.

He was convicted and then given a new trial based on a technicality.

In the second trial, Elizabeth Loftus testified that the eyewitness, Patrick Cone, who saw Hennis leaving Katie Eastburn's house on the night of the murders was "mistaken", and suffering from "false memories".

Tim Hennis was acquitted, thanks largely to the 'expert' on false memories. He had a great life for the next 25 years, while his three victims moldered in their graves.

Last year they finally got him on DNA evidence, which wasn't available in 1985.

Lizzie Loftus. What a gem :floorlaugh:

Okay, another story about 'false confessions'.

 

[primitivefuture]

Okay, another story about 'false confessions'.

Isn't the concept of false memory much different than false confession? I haven't read in depth about the other case mentioned, does it explain that they are somehow the same thing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miranda!]

Isn't the concept of false memory much different than false confession? I haven't read in depth about the other case mentioned, does it explain that they are somehow the same thing?

As I understand it a false memory is one that the person who has it is convinced they remember it happening. A false confession, whether co-erced or not, is a made up story either for attention or to get the focus of attention off of the confessor and just tell the police what they think the police want to hear!

A confession made from a false memory can be in narrative form whilst a false one is usually in fits and starts with the individual reacting to the interjections of the police!

Needless to say, this is a very simplistic description!