Brendan Dassey: a True Story of False Confession

PLENARY DAY 1

Brendan Dassey: A True Story of False Confession

Prof. Laura H. Nirider Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Chicago

2017 Criminal Justice Institute – August 22 & 23, 2017

GeraldGault,MeetBrendanDassey:PreventingJuvenileFalseandCoercedConfessionsinthe TwentyͲFirstCentury

ByLauraNirider,MeganCrane,andStevenDrizin

In1964,fifteenͲyearͲoldGeraldGaultwastakenintocustodybytheSheriffofGilaCounty,arural jurisdictionabouteightymileseastofPhoenix,afteraneighboraccusedhimofmakingpranktelephone callsofthe“irritatinglyoffensive,adolescent,sexvariety.”Overthecourseofthefollowingweek, Geraldappearedtwiceinthechambersofajuvenilecourtjudge,accompaniedbyhismother,older brother,andtwoprobationofficers.Thoughthehearingswereuntranscribed,latertestimonyindicated thatthejudgequestionedGeraldbothtimesaboutwhetherhehadinfactmadethecalls.Gerald’s motherrecalledthathetoldthejudgeonlythathedialedhisneighbor’sphonenumberandhandedthe phonetohisfriendRonald;oneprobationofficerrecalledthatheadmittedmakingthelewdcallsand laterrecanted;andthejudgehimselfrecalledthatGeraldhadadmittedmakingsomeofthelewd statements–butonlytheless“serious”ones.Basedonthesestatements,Geraldwastakenfromhis parentsandheldindetention.Itisnotknownwhetherhisuncorroborated,uncounseledconfession– or,iftherewasmorethanone,whichversion–wastrueorfalse.Inmanyrespects,itdidn’tmatter;the authoritiesbelievedthatGeraldhaddonesomethingwrongandwerefreetoactaccordingly.

Twoandahalfyearslater,in1967,theU.S.SupremeCourtorderedGerald’sreleaseinanopinionthat wasnothinglessthanareckoningforthenation’sjuvenilecourtsystem.Blindedby“neithersentiment norfolklore,”JusticeAbeFortas,writingfortheCourt,laidbarethegulfbetweenjuvenilecourt’s rhetoric–characterizedbyspeechesabout“kindly”judges,informality,andthetherapeutictreatment andrehabilitationofyouthfuloffenders–anditsreality.Juvenilecourts,accordingtotheJustice,too oftenoperatedas“kangaroocourts”pronetoinaccuratefactͲfinding,uncheckedabusesofdiscretion, andarbitrarypunishments.Hisprescriptionwasahealthydoseofdueprocess,includingmost prominentlytherighttocounsel.ToJusticeFortas,onlyachildaidedbyalawyer’s“guidinghand”could both“ascertainadefense”and“prepareandsubmitit.”

Gaultrevolutionizedjuvenilecourtprocessbynotonlyrequiringcounselforkids,butalsograntingthem otherbasicingredientsofdueprocess:therighttonoticeofthecharges,therightstoconfrontationand crossͲexamination,andtherightagainstselfͲincrimination.Perhapsforthesereasons,ChiefJusticeEarl Warren,uponreceivingadraftoftheGaultopinion,senthiscolleagueJusticeFortasapersonalnote:“I joinyourmagnificentopinionintheabovecase.ItwillbeknownastheMagnaCartaforjuveniles.”

1 In2017,whichisthe50thanniversaryoftheGaultdecision,theopinion’sdiscussionoftherightto counselisrightfullybeingfetedacrossthecountry.Buttuckedamongthedecision’slaterpagesisan equallyimportantdiscussion:oneconcerningachild’srightagainstcompelledselfͲincrimination.This fiftyͲyearͲolddiscussionstillresonatestodaypreciselybecausetheproblemitdescribesstillexists:the problemofunreliableconfessionsfromjuveniles.Thesearethepageswewishtocelebrateinthis essay.

“Authoritativeopinionhascastformidabledoubtuponthereliabilityandtrustworthinessof ‘confessions’bychildren,”decreedJusticeFortas,wrappingthewordconfessionineverͲsoͲslightly acerbicquotationmarkstounderscorejusthowformidabletheCourt’sdoubtswere.Inanerawhen DNAtestingwasnotknownorthoughtof,andwhenthenotionofafalseconfessionwashardto imagineandevenhardertoprove,theCourtpointedoutthatachildsubjecttopoliceinterrogation mightadmit“whateverhethoughtwasexpectedsothathecouldgetoutoftheimmediatesituation.” AndJusticeFortasturnedhissearchinggazeonpressureͲfilledinterrogationtechniques,findingthat falseconfessionscouldoccur“wherevertheinnocentpersonisplacedinsuchasituationthatthe untrueacknowledgementofguiltisatthetimethemorepromisingoftwoalternativesbetweenwhich heisobligedtochoose.”Thesewordsinspiredtheundersignedauthorstocreateanddevelopthe CenteronWrongfulConvictionsofYouthnearlytenyearsago–thefirstandonlyorganizationdedicated inlargeparttorepresentingchildrenwhofalselyconfessedtocrimestheynevercommitted.

Gault’sboldwordsshouldhaveresoundedasaclarioncallforinterrogationreform–buttheneedfor suchaCenterpersiststothisday.Perhapsnomorewidelyrecognizedproofexiststhanthe uncounseled,uncorroboratedconfessionofourclient:sixteenͲyearͲold,mentallylimitedBrendan Dassey,whosevideotapedconfessiontomurderwaspublicizedinthe2015NetflixGlobaldocuseries MakingaMurderer.BrendanwasinterrogatedaloneonvideocamerabyWisconsinpolicein2005until hegaveaconfessiontotherapeandmurderofayoungwomannamedTeresaHalbach.Watchedby audiencesworldwide,theserieshasgeneratedaworldwidegroundswellofsupportforBrendan becausemanybelievehimtobeinnocentandhisconfessiontobefalse.

2 Viewerswatchedaspoliceusedaseriesofmisguidedtechniquestoelicitaconfession:theytoldthe impressionableBrendanthateverythingwouldbe“okay”aslongashetoldthemwhattheyalready believedhehaddone;theyfedhimcrucialnonͲpublicdetailsaboutthemurder,likethefactthat Halbachhadbeenshotinthehead;andtheyfalselyledhimtobelievethathewouldbereturnedto schoolintimetofinishaproject–evenafterheconfessedtorapeandmurder.Theseriesservesasa vividreminderthattheconcernsarticulatedinGerald’scasehaven’tgoneaway.Eveninthenew millennium,achildsubjecttouncounseledinterrogationmightagreeto“whateverhethoughtwas expected”inordertogobackhome–or,inBrendan’scase,backtoschool.Andbyputtinga heartbreakingfaceontheproblemofjuvenilefalseconfessions,theserieshasremindedusofthefierce urgencyofthetaskathand:workingtoreformjuvenileinterrogationtechniquesbeforewelockup moreBrendanDasseys.

Tobesure,thelegalterrainhasnotgonecompletelyunchangedsincetheeraofGeraldGault.After decadesofdormancy,thehighCourtrevivifiedGault’sconcernabouttheunreliabilityofjuvenile confessionsin2011’sJ.D.B.v.NorthCarolina.There,theCourtnotedthatempiricalstudiesundertaken intheeraofDNAͲprovenexonerationshaveshownthattheproblemoffalseconfessionsisindeed“all themoreacute”whenthesubjectofcustodialinterrogationisajuvenile.Buildingonadecadeof reinvigoratedjuvenilejurisprudence,theCourtexplainedthatjuvenilesarevulnerableduring interrogationpreciselybecausethey“aremorevulnerableorsusceptibleto…outsidepressures”and “oftenlacktheexperience,perspective,andjudgmenttorecognizeandavoidchoicesthatcouldbe detrimentaltothem.”

Recognitionoftheproblemhasspreadbeyondthecourts,too.Whilemanypoliceinterrogationtraining firmshavebeenloathetoreformtheirtechniques,somelawenforcementagencieshaveagreedonthe needforreform,includingtheInternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice.In2012,thatAssociation issuedajuvenileinterrogationmanualspecificallygearedatpreventingfalseconfessionsthat recommended,amongotherthings,theuseofdifferentandmorechildͲsensitiveinterrogation techniques.HearkeningbacktoGault’swarningthatchildrenmightadmittoanythingiftheythinkthey willgettogohome,theAssociationcautionedofficerstoavoid“even…indirectpromisesofleniency” thatimplythatconfessionwillresultinhelporthatsilencewillresultinnegativeconsequences. Similarly,itwarnedagainstusingdeceptionwithchildren,includingtheuseoffalseevidenceduring interrogation,andinsistedthatofficersrefrainfromdisclosingcrimeͲscenefactsduringthe interrogation.Tobesure,thismanualbindsnotasingleofficer,butitstandsasareformͲminded templatefordepartmentalinterrogationpoliciesaroundthecountry.

Manystatelegislatureshavealsotakenbasicstepstoimprovetheconditionssurroundingjuvenile interrogation.Indeed,Brendan’scaseisemblematicofoneofthemostsignificantreformsthathas sweptthenationinthepasttenyears:thevideotapingofinterrogations.Todate,abouttwentystates haveadoptedrulesrequiringtherecordingofinterrogationsfromstarttofinish.Thisreformhasbeen crucial,shiningaspotlightintothehithertosecretconfinesoftheinterrogationroom;butitdoesnot directlyalterinterrogationtechniquesthemselves.Andreformsbeyondvideotapinghavebeen scattershot.AfewstateshaveadoptedsimplifiedjuvenileMirandawarnings,whileafewothers, includingIllinoisin2016,havemandatedcounselintheinterrogationroomforchildrenundertheageof fifteeninhighlylimitedcircumstances.Thesereformsareunquestionablyimportant,givingheftto importantFifthandSixthAmendmentprotectionsforjuveniles–butagain,theyleaveuntouched interrogationtechniquesthemselves.

3 Thebottomline?Afterdecadesofrecognitionthatjuvenileinterrogationtechniquesmustbefixed,the timeisfinallyrighttoreformthem.InthewakeofMakingaMurderer,frontͲlinedefendersandothers concernedwithmakinginterrogationslesscoerciveandmorereliablehaveanunprecedented opportunitytopursuechange.Nowmorethanever,aglobaloutcryaboutjuvenileinterrogation techniquesisincentivizingjudges,politicians,andlawenforcementofficerstochangetheway interrogationworksinordertoensureconfessions’reliability.Andthebestplacestostartarethevery tacticsusedonBrendanDassey,includingfalsepromisesofleniency,liesabouttheevidence,andfactͲ feeding.Thattoxicbundleoftechniquesisusedaroundthecountry–notjustinWisconsin–andeach haslongbeenidentifiedasariskfactorforfalseconfession,especiallywhenusedonjuveniles.Those techniquesshouldhavebeendiscardedinthedaysofInreGault.Itistimetoridourselvesofthem now.

FalsePromisesofLeniency

“Ifyoudidsomethings…it’sOK.Aslongasyoucanbehonestwithus,it’sOK.Ifyoulieaboutitthat’s gonnabeproblems.”–InterrogationofBrendanDassey(Wisconsin,2006) “Alleveryone’swaitingfortodayisforyoutoadmittowhatyoudidsothatwecanstarttheprocessof gettingyousomehelp.”–InterrogationofNgaTruong(Massachusetts,2008) “YouneedtostartthinkingaboutwhatyouaregoingtodoforyourselfbecauseIknowyougotacouple ofkidsoutthereandI’dtoseethekidsmisstheirdaddyforalongtimebecauseyoudidn’twanttotalk aboutwhat’sgoingon.”–InterrogationofAnthonyPolk(Iowa,2008) Anydefenderwhohashadacaseinvolvingarecordedinterrogationwillrecognizetheserefrainsor variantsthereon.Taughttoofficersduringinterrogationtrainingsthatareheldatpolicedepartments nationwide,suchstatementsaredangledinfrontofsuspectstoprovidethemareasontoconfess.This isstandardpractice.ItshouldbeobviousthatconfessionisaprofoundlyselfͲdamagingact,thelikesof whichfewrationalpersonswoulddo.Inalegalsystemcharacterizedbypublicstigma,lengthy sentences,andharshprisonconditions,mostpeoplewouldrationallyconcludethatthephysicalcostsof confessingtoaseriouscrimeoutweighthebenefitsofarelievedmind.Toconvincesomeonetoconfess whoisnotalreadypredisposedtodoso,therefore,officersareregularlytrainedtoobfuscatetheharm, totrickasuspectintobelievingthathisselfͲinterestactuallylieswithconfession,notwithsilence.In thissense,thetaskofinterrogationistomaketheirrationalchoice–confessing–seemrational. Thatsaid,courtsoftenlookaskanceatdirectpromisesofleniency,like“ifyouconfess,youwillgo home.”SuchobviousliesaretoomuchformanycourtstostomachinlightofaFifthAmendmentthat insiststhatanyselfͲincriminationmustbedonevoluntarilyafterasuspectfreelyweighsthecostsand benefitsofconfessing.TheSeventhCircuitputafinepointonthisinU.S.v.Villalpando:“Thereasonwe treatafalsepromisedifferentlythanothersomewhatdeceptivepolicetactics(suchascajolingand duplicity)isthatafalsepromisehastheuniquepotentialtomakeadecisiontospeakirrationalandthe resultingconfessionunreliable.”1Inreachingthisconclusion,thecourtrecognizedthat“[p]olice conductthatinfluencesarationalpersonwhoisinnocenttoviewafalseconfessionasmorebeneficial thanbeinghonestisnecessarilycoercive,becauseofthewayitrealignsasuspect’sincentivesduring interrogation.” 1U.S.v.Villalpando,588F.3d1124,1128(7thCir.2009)(internalcitationomitted).

4 Againstthislegallandscape,officersaretrainedtodancearoundtheissue:tosuggestleniencywithout eversayingitoutright,usinglanguagethatclearlytelegraphsthemessagewithoutcrossingtheline. Manyinterrogators,thus,tellsuspectsthatiftheyconfess,theprosecutorwill“understand”and“work with”them;thateverythingwillbe“allright”;thatthesuspectwillreceive“help,”suchascounseling; andthatthesuspect’sfuturewillremainbright.Someinterrogatorsevenexplicitlysay“Ican’tpromise youanything,”onlytofollow,asentenceortwolater,withanassurancethateverythingwillbeokayif thesuspectconfesses.Whilecommonsensetellsusthatthatthesetypesofstatementscommunicate leniencyasclearlyasadirectpromise–particularlytotheearsandmindofachild–suchcommon sensehasyettotakeholdinsomecourtrooms.Indeed,trialcourtsareoftenblindedbythecontentof aconfessionandthusbendoverbackwardtofindtheconfessionvoluntary,resultinginajurisprudence thatpurportstoprohibit“ifyouconfess,youwillgohome”butmaytolerate“ifyoucooperate, everythingwillbeokay.” Butshouldthisrepackaging–inwhichthethinnestofveilsaredrawnoverunmistakablepromisesof leniency–insulatesuchinterrogationtacticsfromjudicialscrutiny?Theanswerisaclearno.InaWhite Papersummarizingthepositionofitsmembership,theAmericanPsychologicalAssociationidentified evenimpliedpromisesofleniencyasriskfactorsforfalseconfessionandwarnedthatinterrogation tacticsthatimplyleniency“maywellleadinnocentpeoplewhofeeltrappedtoconfess.”2 Thisisparticularlytruewhenthepersonbeinginterrogatedisajuvenile.Whenasked,childrenwho falselyconfessedtocrimesthattheydidnotcommitfrequentlyofferthesameexplanation:Iconfessed becauseIthoughtIwouldgohome.Theconsistencyofthisrefrainisremarkable,anditdemonstrates thatchildrenhearthesepromisesloudandclear.AndtheU.S.SupremeCourthasacknowledgedthe reasonsforthisclearpattern:childrenandteenagersareindeedmoresusceptibletothepressuresof interrogationpreciselybecausetheirstillͲdevelopingbrainsrenderthemillͲequippedtoweighlongͲterm costsandbenefits–which,inturn,makesthemeasymarksforinterrogationtacticsthatdistortthe consequencesofconfessing.Inshort,itsimplytakesalotlesstorealigntheinterrogationroom incentivesforajuvenilethanforanadult–evenwhenthejuvenileisfactuallyinnocent.Itisupto defenderstopointthisrealityout. PRACTICETIPS: x Challengecourts’toleranceofimpliedpromisesofleniencyinmotionstosuppress x RelyonthescientificfoundationprovidedbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation’sWhite Paperonfalseconfessions x CitecasesincludingDassey,Truong,Polk LiesAboutEvidence

“Theypointedyouout.Theygavemeyourname!Theygavemeyourlastname.Ihadyourfirstname. ‘Who’sthis?Doyourecognizeanybodyinthispicture?’‘Yeah,that’sTrevonYates.’”ͲͲFalsehood DuringInterrogationofTrevonYates(Illinois,2013)

“[Weneedtofigureout]whyyoufeellikeyouwanttotouchathreeͲyearͲoldlittlegirl.Okay?Causeit didhappen.Sheexplaineditperfectly.”–FalsehoodDuringInterrogationofEliasV.(California,2013)

2http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/White%20Paper%20Ͳ%20LHB%20(2010).pdf

5 “There’sanitemthatyoutouched,allright,thatleftsome[DNA]particlesonitthatdidsomedamageto somebody...Theevidenceshowsyouwerethere.Theevidenceshowsit.Ican’tlieaboutthe evidence.”–FalsehoodDuringInterrogationofRobertDavis(Virginia,2003)

Liesabouttheevidence–knowninthefalseconfessionliteratureas“falseevidenceploys”–are prohibitedintheUnitedKingdomandmostotherEuropeancountries.ButcourtsacrosstheUnited Stateshaveblessedpoliceliesabouttheevidence,evenwhenthepersonbeinginterrogatedisachild– albeitinaseriesofoutdatedopinionsthatareripeforrefreshing.In1969,inFrazierv.Cupp,theU.S. SupremeCourtaffirmedthelegalityofdeceptiveinterrogationtactics.3TheCuppcourtheldthata policefalsehoodabouttheevidencewillnotrenderaconfessioninvoluntaryonitsown;instead,theuse ofsuchatacticisjustonefactortoconsiderinthetotalityofthecircumstances.Lowercourtsread Cuppasavirtualgreenlightforpolicedeceptionandnowregularlysignoffonawiderangeofpolice lies,fromgeneralizedassertionslike“wealreadyknowwhatyoudid”tohighlyspecificclaimslike“we foundyourfingerprintsonthegun”andevenliesaboutwhetherpolicearepermittedtolie.

Buttherealityisthatliesabouttheevidenceareanotherriskfactorforfalseandunreliableconfessions. InitsWhitePaper,theAmericanPsychologicalAssociationnotedthat“[a]ttimes,Americanpolicewill overcomeasuspect’sdenialsbypresentingsupposedlyincontrovertibleevidenceofhisorherguilt... evenifthatevidencedoesnotexist.”Outrageously,itnoted,suchatacticisevenrecommendedin somepolicetrainingmanuals.ButtheAPAwarnedthat“outrightliescanputinnocentsatriskto confessbyleadingthemtofeeltrappedbytheinevitabilityoftheevidenceagainstthem.”Indeed,an evidentiarylieoftentipsthescalesbyconvincingasuspectthattheoddsaresostackedagainsthimthat nothingcanbedonebutmitigatethedamagebyadmittingguilt.Inotherwords,liesaboutthe evidencecanhelpmaketheirrationalchoicetoconfesslookrational.

Somecourtshaveplacedlimitsonpolicedeceptionduringinterrogation;courtsinbothFloridaandNew Jersey,forinstance,havedrawnthelineatactuallymanufacturingfakeevidence.4AndtheSeventh CircuitCourtofAppealshastakenadifferenttacticbyprohibitingliesaboutspecializedformsofmedical evidencethatasuspectisnotabletocontradict.5Butsuchlimitsareincompleteguardsagainstfalse confessions.Forthisreason,theAPArecommendsacompletebanonpoliceliesabouttheevidence but,inthealternative,proposescriterionforcaseͲbyͲcaseevaluationincluding“theextentthata suspectisvulnerable(e.g.,byvirtueofhisorheryouth,naiveté,intellectualdeficiency,oracute emotionalstate)andtotheextentthattheallegedevidenceispresentedasincontrovertible,sufficient asabasisforprosecution,andimpossibletoovercome.”Indeed,astheAPArecognizes,youthful suspectsareparticularlyillͲequippedtopushbackagainstfalseassertionsbyauthorityfigures.Many juvenilesdonothavethebasicknowledgeorlifeexperiencetoquestionorsuspectthatthepoliceare allowedtolie,nordomanyhavethematurityorconfidencetochallengealyingofficer.Morelikely,the juvenilewillsimplythrowuphishands,admitdefeatinthefaceofapparentlyinculpatoryevidencethat hecannotchallengeorexplain,andyieldtothedemandforaconfession–whetherguiltyornot. PursuanttotheAPA’srecommendation,defenseattorneysshouldadvocateforsignificantlimitson policedeception,particularlywhenthesubjectofinterrogationisajuvenile.Thishasalreadybeen successfulinsomecourts.Forexample,ina2015CaliforniaCourtofAppealscase,anappellatecourt

3349U.S.731(1969). 4Statev.Patton,362N.J.Super.16(N.J.1993);Statev.Cayward,552So.2d921(Fla.1989). 5662F.3d897,906(7thCir.2011).

6 foundathirteenͲyearͲoldboy’sconfessiontobeinvoluntary,notingamongotherreasonsthat“[t]he useofdeceptivetechniquesissignificantlymoreindicativeofinvoluntarinesswhere,asherethe,the subjectisa13ͲyearͲoldadolescent.”6Itishightimeforothercourtstocatchup–anditisuptofrontͲ linedefenseattorneystomakesurethattheydo. PRACTICETIPS: x Argueforaban–oratleastalimit–onfalseevidenceployswithjuvenilesuspects x Citethemanyjuvenilefalseconfessioncasesthatinvolvedliesabouttheevidence;use resourcesliketheNationalRegistryofExonerationstofindsuchcases x CitetheAmericanPsychologicalAssociationWhitePaper x CitecaseslikeInreEliasVandAlemanv.VillageofHanoverPark x Citethedevelopmentalandsocialscienceprovingboththatchildrenareespeciallyvulnerableto deceptionandpsychologicalmanipulation,andthattheyareillͲequippedtoconfrontsuchlies fromauthorityfigures x RememberthattheU.S.SupremeCourthasrecognizedincaseslikeHaleyv.Ohiothattactics whichmayleaveanadultcriminalsuspect“coldandunimpressed”may“overwhelmand overawe”ayouthfulsuspect.Inotherwords,tacticswhichmaynotrenderanadult’s confessioninvoluntarymayrequiresuppressionofajuvenileconfession. Contamination “Wearereallygoingoutonalimbherewithyou.Woulditmakeyoufeelbetterifwetoldyouexactly whowaswithyou?”–InterrogationofRobertDavis(Virginia,2003)

“IknowKenzellwasn’tupatthedoorbecausetherewasonlytwopeople.Okay,sotheonlytwopeople thatdidtherobberywasyouandDevan,right?”–InterrogationofTrevonYates(Illinois,2013)

“I’mjustgonnacomeoutandaskyou.Whoshotherinthehead?”–InterrogationofBrendanDassey (Wisconsin,2006)

Perhapsnoprobleminthesordidrealmoffalseconfessionsismoreperniciousthanthe problemofcontamination.AsaCaliforniacourtnoted,policetoooftendisclosespecificfactsregarding thecrimeduringtheinterrogationprocess,thusenablingthesuspecttoadoptthosefactsandweave themtogetherintoadetailednarrativeofguilt–evenifheorsheisinnocent–thatvirtuallysealshisor herfatebecauseofitsplausibility.Indeed,BrendanDassey’scaseprovidesadisturbingexampleofthe powerofacontaminatedconfession.Brendan’svideotapedinterrogationshowstheofficersfeeding himnonpublicinformationaboutthecrimewhenhewasunabletoproduceit,includingthe whereaboutsofthevictim’spersonaleffects,thedisablingofthevictim’scar,and–mostcrucially–the methodbywhichthevictimwasmurdered(“I’mjustgoingtocomeoutandaskyou.Whoshotherin thehead?”).Atclosingargument,however,theStatesuggestedthatBrendan’sconfessionshouldbe believedpreciselybecausehegaveaccurateinformationaboutthesenonpublicdetails–whileglossing overtherealitythathis“knowledge”ofthosefactswasbasedoncontamination.Liketheoverwhelming majorityofotherfalseconfessorswhotaketheircasestotrial,Brendanwasconvictedandsentencedto 6InreEliasV.,237Cal.App.4th568,586,587,591,593Ͳ95(1stDist.June9,2015).

7 lifeinprisonbasedonaconfessionthatendedupincludingaccurateͲsoundingdetailsbutthatstill misledthejuryabouthisguilt.

Evenlawenforcementinterrogationtrainersrecognizethedangerofcontaminatinga confession.Initstrainingmanual,JohnE.Reid&Associatesemphaticallywarnsofficersagainst intentionallyorinadvertentlyprovidingsuspectswithkeyfactsofthecrime.Interrogatorsareinstructed thatwhenreviewingaconfessionthatappearstobecorroborated,“theinvestigatorshouldbecertain thatthedetailswerenotsomehowrevealedtothesuspectthroughthequestioningprocess,news media,ortheviewingofcrimescenephotographs.”Themanualstressesthat“[i]tishighlyimportant.. .thattheinvestigatorlettheconfessorsupplythedetailsoftheoccurrence,andtothisend,the investigatorshouldavoidoratleastminimizetheuseofleadingquestions.”

Despitethesewarnings,factͲfeedingstilloccurstoooften–butbecausesomedefendersarenot trainedtothinkoffactͲfeedingascognizableduringatraditionalmotiontosuppress,manyareleft unsurehowtocombatit.Butthetricktochallengingcontaminationinamotiontosuppressistocast factͲfeeding–appropriately,webelieve–aspartofaninterrogator’sarsenalofcoercionand manipulation.Indeed,manydefenderswhohavearguedthatcontaminationorfactͲfeedingisitselfa formofcoercionhavesucceeded.Thenotionthatcontaminationwasconstitutionallyproblematicwas firstintroducedintheMirandadecisionitself,wheretheCourtspokecriticallyofpolicetacticsthat causeasuspectto“merelyconfirm[]thepreconceivedstorythepoliceseektohavehimdescribe.”7 Sincethen,manylowercourtshavefollowedsuit.Justthispastyear,afederalcourtsuppressedan eighteenͲyearͲold’sconfessionwherethepolice“askedhimthesamequestionsoverandoveruntilhe finallyassentedandadoptedthedetailsthattheofficersposited.”8Similarly,courtshavesuppressed confessionsincaseswhere“thereisnotasingleinculpatoryfactindefendant’sconfessionthatwasnot suggestedtohim”9;where“themajorityof[suspect’s]finalconfessionwascomprisedofdetailsthat [suspect]hadadoptedfromtheofficers’suggestions”10;andwheretheconfession“containslittle informationthatwasnotfirstprovidedorsuggestedbytheinterrogatingofficers.”11Clearly,itis possible–andindeedwise–toarguethatcontaminationitselfis,inessence,coercive. PRACTICETIPS:

x Litigatecontaminationasaformofpolicecoercionthatviolatesconstitutionalguaranteesof dueprocess x Persuademorejudgestoapplyheightenedscrutinytojuvenileconfessions,likeinEliasV x CitecaseslikeInreEliasV,U.S.v.Preston,andStatev.Rettenberger

Inshort:thetimeisripeforwholesalereformofthewaysinwhichourpoliceinterrogateour youth.WhilepiecemealprogressisbeingmadeinlawenforcementͲdrivenreformsandafewstate legislatures,themosteffectivevehicleforchangecanbemadebyfrontͲlinedefenseattorneyswhocan bringtolifenotonlyGault’scallforzealousadvocacybutalsoitsconcernfortheunreliabilityofyouthful confessions.Nowmorethanever,thoseconcernedaboutthereliabilityofchildren’sconfessionsshould acttobreakthroughthelegalfictionsthatcaninsulatesuchconfessionsfromrigorousscrutiny– 7Miranda,384U.S.at455. 8Preston,751F.3dat1023Ͳ24. 9Thomas,8N.E.3dat316. 10InreJ.F.,987A.2d1168(D.C.2010). 11Statev.Rettenberger,984P.2d201009,1020¶40(Utah1999).

8 drawingonthetimeͲhonoredlessonsofInreGaulttoinsistthatafterfiftyyears,oursystemcanno longertolerateinterrogationtacticsthatimperilchildren.Withdedication,creativity,andperseverance, thewisewordsofGaultcanfinallybeturnedfromarhetoricalmandateintolegalreality.