Confessions and expert testimony

In this clinical paper, the author discusses criminal confessions from the point of view of the expert witness who may be asked to comment on the reliability of the statement and waiver of rights. From the time a suspect is in police custody, constitutional protections against self-incrimination and for due process are in place. The Supreme Court set the standard for these situations in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. Although it has long been criticized by law enforcement, the decision was upheld in the 2000 decision in Dickerson v. U.S. For a waiver of rights to be valid, it must be a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision. Voluntariness is an equation of objective and subjective variables. Treatment by police, physical conditions of interrogation, the suspect's experience and mental state can alter the reliability of a confession. Accordingly, the author has devised a mnemonic for the recognition of conditions that may give rise to expert testimony. The conditions are: Mental illness, Intoxication, Retardation, Acquiescence, Narcotic withdrawal, Deception, and Abuse. These are discussed, supported by examples from the author's practice.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Quintieri and K. J. Weiss Admissibility of False-Confession Testimony: Know Thy Standard J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2005; 33(4): 535 - 538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]