PAPER 1: FALSE CONFESSION ASSIGNMENT Legal issues involved in the interrogation of criminal suspects are the leading cause for wrongful conviction of innocent individuals based off of false confessions. The primary motive for police officials is to close a case with a written and verbal confession from a possible suspect. Confessions override evidence if the confession is convincing enough to the jurors. Most people assume that people would not confess to a crime they didn’t commit, but due to the harsh interrogation circumstances, psychological coercion and situation factors, these can influence an innocent individual to confess to a crime they didn’t commit. Even though there are certain laws that protect individuals from false confessions …show more content…
Next suspect involved in the Norfolk Four case was Joe Dick. Joe Dick growing up was socially awkward and a loner. Joe was psychologically coerced into providing a false confession during interrogation. During Joe’s interrogation he was told his DNA was found at the scene of the crime (even though his DNA didn’t match what was found on the victim), along with a visual image of the murdered victim. The visual proof mentally disturbed Joe, psychology coercing him to internalize the belief that he had committed this crime. Similar situation to Carol Richardson a young girl who was also convicted of being involved in the bombing of the Guilford Four, and was psychologically coerced into providing a false confession. During Robinsons appeal process a psychologist concluded that Robinson was, “vulnerable to interrogative pressure and that she was prone to avoid conflict and please others when faced with social pressure.”(pg.52, MOT) While Carole was going though withdrawals from her medication (barbiturate) after being detained for three days; she was having difficulty remembering and started to internally believe that she was involved in the bombing. Psychologists Gudjonsson and Mackeith diagnosed her as having “memory distrust syndrome”- which is when an individual comes to have faith in his or her memory for a crime and succumbs to police pressure by …show more content…
The four suspects in each case had to serve sentences, but later released after the correct offenders were caught. The only difference was that the Norfolk Four individuals were still considered involved in the murder even though they arrested the correct suspect. The Norfolk four have to register as sex offenders, have a hard time maintaining livelihood and are still waiting to have their name cleared from the convictions. The Guilford four was eventually given monetary compensation, cleared names and a formal
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
In the trial of the four Norfolk sailors, the main reason why they were all convicted was not the proclaimed evidence that wasn’t on the scene, but was the confessions that they were coerced to say during the interrogations. There was virtually no evidence against the four sailors, but the jury sided that they were all guilty. The major problem during the trial was that no evidence was found at the crime scene and the prosecution only badgered the four sailors based on confessions that they were threatened to say or else they
The United States Supreme Court in the Packingham v. North Carolina first amendment case has ruled in favor of Lester Gerard Packingham. The state from now on may not bar social media access to registered sex offenders. The case’s build up dates back to 2002 when 21 year old college student Lester G. Packingham had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl. For involvement with a minor he received a 10-12 month sentence, but having never met problems with the law, the judge required him to go on a 24 month probation and register as a sex offender. Five years had passed and in 2008 North Carolina forbid any person on the sex offender list to use any type of social media.
I. Questions Presented Under Kansas law, did Sara Ryker confess voluntarily under the circumstances when officers questioned her? 1. Does Ryker’s ability to communicate with the outside world upon request weigh in favor of a voluntary confession when she asked to use the phone and the officers told her she had to wait? 2. Do Ryker’s age, intellect, and background support a voluntary confession when she is 20 years old, possesses low intelligence, and has no criminal background?
Defendants are in great pressure to lie to their counsel regarding guilt or innocence. If the defendant decides to admit his or her guilt, it makes it difficult to help the defendant. Or if the defendant lies about involvement it is difficult to negotiate plea bargains or the plea agreement given. This scenario poses an ethical dilemma for the attorney, which is to permit a client to lie in court and plea guilty when they indicted their innocence. With the plea bargain the defendant is able to freely tell the truth with the knowledge that plea bargain will exist whether he denies guilt or not.
The legal factors of this case are the level of crime that has been committed is a very high-level. The strength of the evidence is not to strong since the detectives did not thoroughly go over fingerprints or follow up on what had been the alibis. The detectives thought the eyewitness and forced confession would be enough to close this
The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.
False Confessions: Will they ever be stopped? Confessions are a large part of the justice system, they can make or break a reputation. In the court system, many confessions can change a person’s future. James Ochoa a 20-year-old was convicted of car theft when he was put in jail for his false confession.
The fifth amendment to the United States constitution should remain just as it is, meaning that no person should be forced to provide incriminating evidence against themselves. And to do so would go against the natural law of self preservation. But by not compelling a person to provide evidence against themselves offers one relief from perjury in order to preserve themselves. The speaker equates not answering to lying which is incorrect, the speakers strawman example of not answering a spouse is an untruth and is an unrealistic example.
Three years later, through the newfound DNA evidence Moore was exonerated and a match was made to Thomas Pope Jr. who had prior convictions of abduction and forced sodomy from 1991 and had received parole in 2003. He was convicted for both charges on March 24, 2010 at the age of 55 for a sentence of life in prison. Sadly, Moore didn’t live to see his own exoneration due to his death on April 25, 2006. Due to the fact his exoneration was post-mortem he did not receive compensation for his wrongful
The police then determine if the suspect is guilty and continuously interrogate, accuse, and even threaten the suspect for hours until they confess, whether they are guilty or not. On many occasions the people who are coerced into false confessions are have severe mental impairments that prevent them from functioning as a normal person with out the impairments would.
Myesha Morrison - ADJU 201/06765 – Case: Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) Facts: Mr. Oreste Fulminante was arrested and imprisoned for a crime in Florida. While in prison, a confidential informant working for the FBI approached Fulminante and questioned him about the death of his 11 year old step-daughter. The informant, Anthony Sarivola offered Fulminante protection from the harassment and harsh treatment he was receiving in prison if he confessed to the murder of his step-daughter. Fuulminate subsequently confessed to the murder. Upon his release for the original crime, he also confessed to Sarivola's wife.
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227).
Consequently, when interrogators go into interviews believing the suspect is guilty, it brings on intense amounts of stress, putting suspects at a higher risk to crack under pressure. E. This increased pressure brought on by misclassified interrogations cause innocent suspects to feel so much stress they confess to a crime they did not commit. F. Misclassified errors are just one way suspects feel their only option is to give a false confession in order escape the pressure in the interrogation room. II.
“Courts have permitted the interrogators to tell the suspect that if he confesses his conscience will be comforted or they will inform the suspect’s cooperation to the court” (Richard 2008). It is unethical to promise and give hope to the suspect that will not be met in order to obtain a voluntary confession which are induced. During interrogation someone may walk in and hide his identity like being a police officer, while acting like someone else and promise the suspect that he or she is here to help and they are in good hands. Doing this is violating the rights of the suspect and should be taken into consideration, because it inflicts the mind of a suspect. If the suspect is going to confess it should be voluntary not being forced to “voluntary
There are those who are innocent but have been declared