True Crimes, False Confessions

Source: used with permission from iclipart

On June 14, 2024, Sandra Hemme's 1980 murder conviction was finally overturned. The only evidence that ever connected Sandra to the crime was her own unreliable and false confessions made while she was being treated at a state psychiatric hospital. There were no witnesses or physical/forensic evidence linking Sandra to the murder, the victim, or the crime scene. She had no motive to harm the victim; in fact, there was no evidence the two had ever met. At the time of her release after forty-three years behind bars, she was the longest-known wrongly incarcerated woman in the United States.

Giving a false confession is like ringing a bell. It can’t be unrung. When defense attorneys claim their client falsely confessed, jurors struggle. How do they make sense of the seemingly senseless? Why would an innocent person confess to a crime they didn't commit? They also convict; studies of proven false confessors have shown that even in cases involving confessions later proven to be false, juries convict in 73-81% of the cases.

As a forensic psychologist, I’ve studied the complex psychology behind these often-baffling admissions of guilt. We’ve come a long way in understanding the conditions under which false confessions arise. But what can be done once a false confession has already been given? How do you explain it to your skeptical courtroom audience? Here’s what we know.

Explaining the Mechanics of False Confessions

False confessions typically arise from a complex interplay of psychological factors (situational vulnerability, demographic or personality variables) and interrogation techniques (coercive questioning, harsh or lengthy interrogations). Ideally, the interrogation that led to the confession is videotaped so jurors can see what happened for themselves. If not, educating jurors on the psychology of false confessions is your best shot. This can be done through specialized jury instructions and expert testimony.

Specialized Jury Instructions

Specialized jury instructions about confession evidence aim to educate jurors about factors that can contribute to false confessions. Research by Henderson and Levett (2020) found that mock jurors who received specialized confession instructions were 27% less likely to convict in cases involving coerced confessions compared to those who received standard instructions.

These instructions typically cover:

a) The possibility of false confessions: Explicitly stating that innocent people sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit. "The law recognizes that, in some circumstances, an innocent person may falsely confess to a crime they did not commit."

b) Factors contributing to false confessions: Listing elements like lengthy interrogations, sleep deprivation, or intellectual disabilities. "Factors that may increase the risk of a false confession include, but are not limited to, extreme fatigue, prolonged questioning, threats or promises made by interrogators, and a suspect's young age or cognitive limitations."

c) Confessional evaluation criteria: Suggesting ways to assess the reliability of a confession. "In evaluating the reliability of a confession, you may consider the length of the interrogation, the suspect's age, and mental capacity, whether the confession contains details that were not made public, and whether the confession is consistent with other evidence in the case."

d) The need to consider the totality of the circumstances: Encouraging jurors to look for evidence beyond the confession itself. "A confession alone is not sufficient to convict. You must also find corroborating evidence that tends to establish the defendant's guilt independently of the confession."

The Role of Expert Testimony

Expert witnesses can also play a crucial role in educating jurors about the psychology of false confessions. Here are some ways experts can be effectively utilized, along with real-world examples:

• Educating about Interrogation Techniques: Experts can explain how specific interrogation methods might lead to false confessions. In State v. Lawson (2020), Dr. Richard Leo testified about how the Reid Technique interrogation methods used in the case could lead to false confessions. He explained how accusatory questioning and false evidence ploys might have influenced the defendant's statements. The jury ultimately acquitted the defendant.
• Explaining Vulnerabilities: Experts can discuss how certain personal characteristics increase the risk of false confessions. In re Elias V. (2021), Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson testified about adolescents' increased susceptibility to suggestive questioning. He described how the 14-year-old defendant's age, combined with lengthy questioning and sleep deprivation, created a high-risk situation for a false confession. This testimony contributed to the court's decision to suppress the confession.
• Addressing Cognitive Limitations: Experts can illuminate how intellectual disabilities or mental health issues impact interrogation responses. In People v. Sanchez (2022), Dr. Saul Kassin testified about how the defendant's intellectual disability increased his vulnerability to interrogation pressure. Kassin explained research showing that individuals with cognitive limitations are more likely to comply with authority figures and may have difficulty understanding the long-term consequences of confessing. This testimony helped contextualize the defendant's behavior for the jury.
• Illuminating Confession Contamination: Experts can explain how accurate crime details can appear in false confessions. In Commonwealth v. Wright (2023), Dr. Julia Shaw testified about memory malleability and how interrogators can inadvertently implant false memories. She explained how the defendant's confession, which initially lacked key details, gradually incorporated crime scene information over multiple interrogations. This testimony helped the jury understand why the presence of accurate details didn't necessarily indicate a true confession.
• Explaining Subtle Coercion: Experts can highlight how seemingly benign interrogation tactics can be psychologically coercive. In United States v. Martinez (2022), Dr. Christian Meissner testified about how minimization techniques can implicitly promise leniency without making direct offers. He described research showing how statements like "I'm sure you didn't mean for this to happen" can be interpreted by suspects as promises of reduced punishment if they confess. This testimony helped jurors understand why an apparently "voluntary" confession might not be reliable.

Law and Crime Essential Reads

Is "Affluenza" Just a Creative Way to Justify Being Mean?

The Falsification of Police Murders as Suicides Is Troubling

The Bottom Line

An action taken in a single moment can change a life. There are too many cases in which the choice made – to falsely claim responsibility for a crime out of fear, stress, or fatigue – prematurely ended an investigation and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

False confessions remain a significant challenge in the criminal justice system. By understanding the psychological mechanisms behind false confessions and implementing evidence-based safeguards such as recorded interrogations, specialized jury instructions, and expert testimony, we can work to prevent wrongful convictions. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."