A study conducted by the Innocent Project of the Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law, revealed that in approximately 25% of DNA
exoneration cases, innocent defendants made false incriminating statements,
delivered outright false confessions or plead guilty to a crime in which they
did not commit in order to limit the amount of jail time.
These cases show without any doubt that confessions
are not always the product from someone who is guilty but rather from suspects
who are in fact innocent, but falsely incriminate themselves.
A dirty secret in law enforcement is that obtaining
a confession, any confession, at all costs, is the ultimate goal in
interrogating any suspect. Another dirty
secret in law enforcement is as long as they have a confession it matters
nothing if the person confessing is innocent or guilty of the crime. Because in their wrapped minds, not only can
they close the books on the crime as solved, but if the person didn’t do this
particular crime they are guilty of something anyway.
In law enforcement closing the file and “solving
the crime” is what ultimately matters.
Justice, truth or getting the right man means nothing after a confession
is obtained. For example in cases in
which false confessions are obtained the confession is usually inconsistent
with the real verifiable facts of the crime.
To get around this obvious problem the interrogating detective will feed
the suspect facts of the crime scene that only the perpetrator and law
enforcement would know about. Therefore,
in false confession cases the New
Jersey criminal defense attorney must be cognizant of
confessions in which the confessor does not know the facts of the crime, and is
spoon fed the facts that were found at the crime scene. Rogue detectives will never admit that they
made a mistake or used unfair, false, or coercive interrogation techniques when
they testify at a Miranda Hearing or trial.
To justify their actions the detectives will engage in what is called
circular reasoning or circular mentality.
That is, the cop has to believe that they got the right suspect. Otherwise a sane cop could not keep his or
her sanity. They have to convince
themselves that he is a right man, even when all the evidence points to the
fact that they got the wrong man.
When confessions are introduced at trial, the
confession overrules and overrides all the other evidence of innocence’s. And juries have difficulty in getting over
the fact that someone confessed. The
first question the jury will ask in the jury room during deliberations; is why
did he confess if he is innocent? You
see people who have never faced a vicious interrogating detective, who knows
all the tricks, can brake the will of even the most sophisticated suspect, will
not understand that innocent people falsely confess to a crime which they did
not commit all the time for a varied of reasons. Some detectives will freely admit off the
record that they can get almost anyone to falsely implicate themselves, and
this is frightenly true.
Whether someone is actually guilty is of no
consequences to the questioning detective.
In the majority of cases if they get you to confess, even if the
evidence points in the direction that you are innocent does not matter. The interrogating officer will continue with
the interrogation until the detective gets the suspect to repeat the story that
the detective wants to hear. Usually
this dog and pony show rehearsing will take place before the actual audio or
visual recording is turned on. Therefore, all the tricks and lies are promised
off the record. Also, promises and
threats and other misleading information that the detective tells the suspect
will also be done before the audio confession is turned on.
The single goal of interrogations is to get someone
to confess who they believe is guilty.
They don’t waste time spending hours interrogating someone whom they
think is innocent.
Scientific research has continually shown that some
personalities are more prone to this type of pressure than offers. People with weak personalities or other types
of mental disabilities are more prone to give false confessions. However, people with forceful personalities
are less likely. Also, people who have
never been arrested before, do not know the legal system, young, women,
disabled are more likely to falsely implicate themselves.
Unfortunately, most jurors cannot understand or
will not accept the reality that it is possible that someone will falsely
accuse themselves of a crime, which he or she did not commit. It is very difficult to explain to a jury
what an innocent defendant is feeling when confronted with such circumstances.
The reasons for a false confession and this
phenomena is varied, however, the biggest signal factor is trickery and false
promises by the interrogating detective.
There are many threats, tricks and deceitful techniques that a rogue
officer will use. Some of the most
common are: Telling the suspect that
they failed a polygraph examination when in fact they passed it; telling the suspect that they will not be
charged if they confess to the story that the detectives want to hear; telling
the suspect that if they are sent into the holding cell they will be assaulted
and raped by the other prisoners, telling a suspect that if they don’t confess
to the story that they want to hear their children will be taken away and DYFS
will be called; telling the suspect that if they don’t confess they will get
the death penalty; telling the suspect
that if they don’t confess to the story they want to hear they will call the
judge and make sure that the bail is so high that the suspect will not be able
to make bail.
For a New
Jersey criminal defense attorney it is extremely
difficult to convince a jury that in fact innocent people falsely accuse
themselves of crimes which they did not commit.
In trying this type of case before a jury in New
Jersey the N.J. criminal defense attorney has the uphill
battle of trying to point out this phenomenon.
The false confession case was epitomes in the
infamous case of “The Norfolk Four”,
in which seven enlisted United States Navy Sailors were charged with the brutal
slaying and rape in which the four sailors falsely accused themselves of a
crime in which it was eventually proven that they did not commit the crime,
when the real killer was later found, confessed and his DNA matched
found at the crime scene.
In New Jersey false confession expert testimony is
allowed by the seminal case, State v.
George King. Unfortunately most people charged with a crime who give false
confession cannot afford the services of this type of expert witness and the
jury will never hear about the phenomenon of a “false confession.”
Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
277 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 261, Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Office; (908) 354-7006
Cell: (201) 240-5716
Dated: January 4, 2013
NJ Criminal Defense Lawyers, NJ Criminal Defense
Attorneys, Bayonne Jersey
City Criminal Lawyers, Union, Essex, Bergen, Hudson Criminal
Lawyers
