U.S. Supreme Court Makes it Easier To Obtain False Confessions
Paul House was freed last year after serving 22 years on death row in Tennessee, as a result of the United States Supreme Court’s precedent-setting House v. Bell decision, which overturned his conviction and established a crucial precedent in the rights of the convicted to present new evidence of their innocence.
What the Court giveth, the Court taketh away.
In the most recent Supreme Court session, according to the AP, the court placed limits on the Miranda protections in three separate decisions. These decisions more than chip away at the Miranda rights of suspects; they also increase the ability of the police to obtain a false confession. Jeffrey Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), thinks the Court’s Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don’t want to confess. “Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda,” says Fisher.
In one decision affecting how long Miranda rights are valid, the court made it clear that these rights last just two weeks. After 14 days, it is up to the individual to remain silent, request a lawyer or refuse to answer questions without the police having to repeat Miranda warnings. And, based on another decision, suspects must acknowledge that they invoke their Miranda protections to remain silent…by not remaining silent. Essentially, unless they tell the interrogators that they intend to remain silent to cut off questioning, any utterance waives the Miranda protections.
According to the Washington Post, “In the case before the court, suspect Van Chester Thompkins was read his rights and, at police request, repeated some of them out loud. But he did not sign an offered waiver of the right, and he did not acknowledge that he was willing to talk. Nor did he say that he wanted the questioning to stop.
Detectives persisted in what one called mostly a “monologue” for about two hours and 45 minutes, until one asked Thompkins whether he believed in God. At a follow-up question — “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” — Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away.
The statement was used against him, along with other testimony, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Michigan.
While the court’s decisions might seem reasonable to some, they do not reflect real life situations where the power of the police during the interrogation process can result in false confessions. Police can lie while questioning suspects, according to the Supreme Court, and routinely do so to obtain confessions. These recent decisions place the onus on suspects to know the law and protect themselves from police tactics that can coerce incriminating statements from uneducated, youthful and mentally challenged suspects, whether they are guilty or not.
The only way to prevent a false confession, a wrongful conviction, an innocent person incarcerated often for life, and the guilty from remaining free, is to have stronger, not weaker, protections during the interrogation process. Some jurisdictions have even come around to supporting the video recording of interrogations in order to prevent the wrong person from being prosecuted, which is an important step in the right direction. Unfortunately, in this session, the Supreme Court has taken a step backward.