{"id":14045,"date":"2023-01-02T20:56:42","date_gmt":"2023-01-03T01:56:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=14045"},"modified":"2023-01-02T20:59:18","modified_gmt":"2023-01-03T01:59:18","slug":"should-pennsylvania-courts-allow-false-confession-expert-testimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2023\/01\/02\/should-pennsylvania-courts-allow-false-confession-expert-testimony\/","title":{"rendered":"Should Pennsylvania Courts Allow False Confession Expert Testimony?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Felicia Dusha, Features Editor <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Photo courtesy of pixabay.com<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, 375 people convicted of crimes in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Of the 375 people, about 30 percent confessed to crimes they did not commit.[2]<\/sup><\/a> Experts on false confessions have studied these cases and compiled data on the causes of false confessions.[3]<\/sup><\/a> These experts have determined that \u201cconfessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but rather are sometimes motivated by external influences.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In \u201cScientific Evidence\u201d by Paul C. Giannelli, Edward J. Imwinkelried, Andrea Roth and Jane Campbell Moriarty, who is the Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University discuss various factors that studies have shown may influence an innocent person to confess. These factors include: \u201cdrug intoxication, lie detector failure, misperception of proof, guilt arising from not helping the victim, and mental deficiency.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, \u201csome suspects confess because of the stress or pressure of the interrogation or because of implied threats. Often suspects are promised leniency if they confess or are convinced they do not remember committing the crime so they should just confess to relieve their guilt.\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a> False confessions may also arise from \u201cpoor police practice, over-zealousness, criminal misconduct, misdirected training, improper use of psychological interrogation techniques, and a refusal to believe a suspect may be innocent.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite various studies on the circumstances that lead people to falsely confess, courts are divided on whether to allow expert testimony on this area of social science. In Commonwealth v. Crawford<\/em>,<\/em>[8]<\/sup><\/a> the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found error in a refusal to allow expert testimony because \u201c[t]he testimony of experts may provide invaluable help to judges and to juries in making a determination of voluntariness.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, In United States v. Hall<\/em>,[10]<\/sup><\/a> the Seventh Circuit ruled that the trial court erred when it excluded expert testimony on false confessions, arguing that expert testimony \u201cwould have let the jury know that a phenomenon known as false confessions exists, how to recognize it, and how to decide whether it fits the facts of the case being tried.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently, in People v. Powell<\/em>,[12]<\/sup><\/a> the New York court reaffirmed an earlier decision that expert testimony may be admitted regarding the factors associated with false confessions.[13]<\/sup><\/a> While the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the testimony from the defendant\u2019s expert because the expert did not link her research on the causes of false confessions to the specific circumstances of the defendant\u2019s interrogation, the court also held that the admissibility of such testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Pennsylvania, however, false confession expert testimony is per se<\/em> impermissible. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue in Commonwealth v. Alicia<\/em>.[15]<\/sup><\/a> In that case, the Court held in a 4-2 decision that expert testimony regarding false confessions was inadmissible.[16]<\/sup><\/a> The defendant, Jose Alicia, was accused of a 2005 killing.[17]<\/sup><\/a> Alicia confessed to the crime after five hours of intense police interrogation.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Lawyers for Mr. Alicia, who had an IQ of 64, which is well below the traditional threshold for intellectual disability, argued that expert testimony regarding the tendency for certain defendants to falsely incriminate themselves was critical to jurors\u2019 analysis of the client\u2019s confession.[19]<\/sup><\/a> Nevertheless, Justice Seamus McCaffery, writing for the majority, stated, \u201c[u]ltimately, we believe that the matter of whether a confession is false is best left to the jury\u2019s common sense and life experience.\u201d[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Had Alicia\u2019s expert, Dr. Richard Leo, Professor of Law and Social Psychology at the University of San Francisco,[21]<\/sup><\/a>been permitted to testify, he would have educated the jury as to \u201cpolice interrogation methods, psychological research on interrogation methods, and coercive interrogation methods that can put an innocent suspect at risk of making a false confession.\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, he would have discussed the \u201cspecific interrogation techniques he discerned from interviewing [Alicia] about what took place during his interrogation, and identify any possible risks of false confession posed by those techniques.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, Dr. Leo would have discussed the relevance of Alicia\u2019s low IQ to the risk of false confession.[24]<\/sup><\/a> According to Dr. Leo, a foremost expert on the behavioral science of false confessions, \u201c[t]here are a number of techniques and a number of personality traits that increase the risk of why somebody would falsely confess, and the explanations are typically based both on the person’s individual make up as well as the techniques that are used during interrogation.\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lawrence Krasner, one of Alicia\u2019s lawyers and now District Attorney of Philadelphia, said the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling was \u201ca wrong decision by a court staking out an unscientific position that will continue to convict innocent people, encourage improper interrogations by police, and cost citizens a fortune in lost lives and lost taxpayer dollars.\u201d[26]<\/sup><\/a> This position is echoed in Justice Thomas Saylor\u2019s dissent, in which he criticized the majority\u2019s \u201cblanket exclusion of social science research based upon unanalyzed assumptions about juror capabilities, even as these assumptions are challenged by demonstrations of wrongful convictions and developing behavioral science.\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> However, in the eight years since Alicia<\/em>, the Court has not reversed its holding, reasoning that false confession expert testimony impermissible invades \u201cthe jury’s role as the exclusive arbiter of credibility.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Professor Jane Moriarty, the Alicia <\/em>Court \u201cshould have looked to jurisprudence in the area of eyewitness identification, where courts have been willing to admit testimony from experts about factors that may affect the reliability of an identification.\u201d  Similarly, with false confession, jurors may be helped by understanding \u201cthe factors that may lead to false confessions and why an innocent person would confess to something he or she did not do.  These are not matters within common understanding.\u201d Notably, the same day the Court decided Alicia<\/em>, it accepted the use of behavioral science in Commonwealth v. Walker.<\/em>[29]<\/sup><\/a> <\/em>In Walker<\/em>, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted testimony by a behavioral science expert witness who explained to jurors the inaccuracies common across eyewitness testimony.[30]<\/sup><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to Pennsylvania\u2019s ruling on false confession expert testimony, is the Supreme Court of Utah\u2019s holding just a year earlier in State v. Perea<\/em>, where the Court held that \u201clike expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification, expert testimony about factors leading to a false confession assists a trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,\u201d noting that \u201c[f]alse confessions are an unsettling and unfortunate reality of our criminal justice system.\u201d[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Professor Moriarty, expert testimony would provide a framework to understand the evidence. Justice Saylor\u2019s dissent \u201cis far more in line with contemporary scientific and legal thought on the subject. The purpose of expert testimony is to educate a jury on factors to evaluate when deciding whether a confession might not be true.\u201d As Professor Moriarty explained, the \u201ctrend around the country is to admit more social science evidence, particularly with respect to complex phenomena such as false confession, that may be outside of the jury\u2019s knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Alicia<\/em> and Walker<\/em>. Considering the trend towards the integration of behavioral science expert witnesses into the legal system, the reliability of such testimony, and the number of innocent people who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, it may be time for Pennsylvania to revisit the admissibility of false confession expert testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a>DNA Exonerations in the United States<\/em>, INNOCENCE PROJECT (last visited Nov. 22, 2022) https:\/\/innocenceproject.org\/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Pennsylvania Court Rules against False Confession Expert Testimony<\/em>, INNOCENCE PROJECT (June 10, 14) https:\/\/innocenceproject.org\/pennsylvania-court-rules-against-false-confession-expert-testimony\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Giannelli, Imwinkelried, Roth, & Moriarty, Scientific Evidence \u00a7 7.07 (5th ed. 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Commonwealth v. Crawford,<\/em> 706 N.E.2d 289 (Mass. 1999).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Giannelli, Imwinkelried, Roth, & Moriarty, Scientific Evidence \u00a7 7.07 (5th ed. 2012).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> United States v. Hall<\/em>, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir. 1996).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> People v. Powell<\/em>, 37 N.Y.3d 476 (N.Y. 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a>Linton Mann III & William T. Russell Jr., In \u2018Powell\u2019, Court Reaffirms Admissibility of Expert Testimony on False Confessions, <\/em>NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL (Dec. 14, 2021) https:\/\/www.law.com\/newyorklawjournal\/2021\/12\/14\/in-powell-court-reaffirms-admissibility-of-expert-testimony-on-false-confessions\/?slreturn=20221019223944<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> Powell, <\/em>37 N.Y.3d at 491.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Commonwealth v. Alicia<\/em>, 92 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 764.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 755.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Colin Holloway, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Use of False Confessions Expert Witness, <\/em>EXPERTPAGES (June 17, 2014) https:\/\/blog.expertpages.com\/general\/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rejects-use-of-false-confessions-expert-witness.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Alicia<\/em>, 92 A.3d at 764.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> An Example of what Dr. Richard Leo says when he testifies on the issue of false confessions<\/em>, REID (Jan. 31, 2019) https:\/\/reid.com\/resources\/whats-new\/2019-an-example-of-what-dr-richard-leo-says-when-he-testifies-on-the-issue-of-false-confessions<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Alicia<\/em>, 92 A.3d at 758.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> An Example of what Dr. Richard Leo says when he testifies on the issue of false confessions<\/em>, REID (Jan. 31, 2019) https:\/\/reid.com\/resources\/whats-new\/2019-an-example-of-what-dr-richard-leo-says-when-he-testifies-on-the-issue-of-false-confessions<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> Pennsylvania Court Rules against False Confession Expert Testimony<\/em>, INNOCENCE PROJECT (June 10, 14) https:\/\/innocenceproject.org\/pennsylvania-court-rules-against-false-confession-expert-testimony\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/sup><\/a> Alicia<\/em>, 92 A.3d at 766.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 759.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Commonwealth v. Walker<\/em>, 92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 793.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Felicia Dusha, Features Editor Photo courtesy of pixabay.com To date, 375 people convicted of crimes in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing.[1] Of the 375 people, about 30 percent confessed to crimes they did not commit.[2] Experts on false confessions have studied these cases and compiled data on [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14046,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2092,6,7],"tags":[3640,3639,3343,30],"class_list":["post-14045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-features-articles","category-juris-blog","category-juris-features","tag-expert-testimony","tag-false-confession","tag-felicia-dusha","tag-pennsylvania"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14045"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14045\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14048,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14045\/revisions\/14048"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14046"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}