Confessions and Interrogation

Law on Criminal Confessions

Following the common law tradition, a confession is admissible in American courts only if it represents a voluntary acknowledgment of guilt. Since 1936, the Supreme Court has prohibited the use of involuntary confessions because of their violation of the due process of law. The Court's interpretation of the word “voluntary,” nevertheless, has evolved over time. In early Supreme Court decisions, such as Hopt v. Utah (110 U.S. 574, 1883) and Brown v. Mississippi (297 U.S. 278, 1936), involuntariness was interpreted as unreliability. The Court reasoned that a confession obtained by threats or physical torture or induced by promises or rewards was inherently untrustworthy. In later Court decisions, it replaced the reliability test with the rational choice test. This required that a defendant's confession be the product of free and rational choice. It should not be the product of police intimidation, coercion, deception, use of excessively lengthy interrogation, or other procedural violations. McNabb v. United States (318 U.S. 332, 1943) provided the example of unnecessary delay in bringing a suspect to a federal judge.

The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) decision changed the landscape of police interrogations in the United States. Police across the nation were henceforth required to read warnings to criminal suspects under their custody. These were that (1) they have the right to remain silent, (2) anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law, (3) they have the right to an attorney during questioning, and (4) if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to them at no cost. Statements made during police interrogation without proof of warnings, or the person's waiver, cannot be admitted into evidence and used against the suspect. The Miranda ruling instigated the due process test for confessions by requiring the suspect actively to waive the rights of the constitutional protections voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently before police interrogation can start.

In determining whether a confession was voluntary, the Court focused on the use of physical torture or coercion in earlier times. In later cases, the totality of the circumstances surrounding interrogation and confessions was the focus of inquiry. The totality of circumstances involves the length of the questioning; interrogation techniques and conditions (for example, depriving the suspect of sleep, food or rest and psychological intimidation); the suspect's age, mental state, and physical condition; and the suspect's general demeanor and history.

...