Tag
This collection summarizes court decisions addressing confession evidence, disputed statements, and expert testimony. The cases include the Crane decision, which held that circumstances surrounding a confession could be presented to challenge its credibility, and the Hall decision, which found that false-confession expertise could assist jurors in evaluating the defense.
This research compilation considers when expert testimony can help jurors evaluate disputed or recanted confessions and when courts may admit that testimony. Its central article reviews the scientific basis and evidentiary challenges for false-confession expertise, uses a New Jersey case to illustrate admissibility issues, and offers guidance for framing expert opinions.
This document provides a sample cross-examination outline for questioning an investigator about interrogation practices in a military case. Its prompts cover rapport building, confrontation, maximization, pressure over several hours, differences between suspect and alleged-victim interviews, and whether the investigator considered corroborating information.
This sample Air Force defense motion asks a court to admit a forensic psychologist’s testimony about false confessions in a contested case. It outlines the proposed testimony on confession research, interrogation risk factors, and why false confessions can seem counterintuitive, then reviews legal authorities addressing whether such expertise could assist factfinders.
This research compilation examines how recording and presenting interrogations can affect judgments about confessions. Studies summarized in the article find that focusing the camera on the suspect can increase perceived voluntariness and guilty verdicts, while an equal view of interviewer and suspect is proposed as a way to reduce that bias and preserve context.
This article reviews research on how confession evidence shapes jurors’ judgments and can create a strong presumption of guilt. It describes confirmation biases and common misconceptions about false confessions, then summarizes preliminary studies suggesting that admissions made during pretext calls may be interpreted differently from statements elicited in police interrogations.
This overview describes the legal voluntariness doctrine used to assess whether a confession was obtained through coercion and may be excluded from evidence. It explains that courts consider the full circumstances, including interrogation conditions and police conduct as well as a suspect’s age, education, physical condition, and psychological state.
This resource questions when expert testimony about counterintuitive behavior is needed and presents research on what jurors know about children’s memory, suggestibility, and responses to sexual abuse. It summarizes studies reporting both accurate public understanding and areas of misconception, then discusses how the evidence may inform admissibility debates and the limits of using general research to interpret an individual case.
This resource combines a prosecutor’s training material on examining child sexual abuse and counterintuitive-behavior experts with guidance from prosecutor Susan Eazer on expert testimony. It reviews Arizona authorities on the scope of expert evidence and offers preparation, cross-examination, and closing-argument considerations, while emphasizing professional conduct and case-specific scrutiny of an expert’s methods and assumptions.
This sample Arizona defense motion asks a superior court to exclude a prosecution expert’s proposed testimony under Evidence Rule 702 and requests a Daubert hearing. It argues that the opinions about counterintuitive behavior lack a sufficiently reliable scientific basis, raising concerns about testability, false-positive rates, and whether the underlying claims satisfy legal standards for expert evidence.
