False Confessions
by PD&A Expert Blake McConnell (FBI, ret.)
PD&A Expert Blake McConnell (FBI, ret.)
A growing number of true crime TV shows, movies, and podcasts highlight cases of individuals wrongly convicted in the United States after falsely confessing during police questioning. These cases are intriguing because most people find it difficult to believe someone would confess to a crime, especially a serious one, that they did not commit. Even more difficult to understand is how someone could be convicted of a crime in the United States based solely on a confession that was eventually proven false. It would be easy to brush these cases off as random conspiracies by government officials to “frame” someone. And it would be logical to assume that modern DNA testing, the very thing that identified many of the notable wrongful conviction cases, would prevent future wrongful convictions. Both of these assumptions are flawed. False confessions are typically the result of insufficient training and the improper use of interrogation techniques, not conspiracies. And a number of false confessions have resulted in wrongful convictions, even when DNA testing pointed to someone else.
Suspect Questioning in the U.S.
Confessions may be the most sought-after evidence in criminal investigations. Confessions can answer questions about crimes that physical evidence cannot. Confessions reveal the motivations of offenders and their thoughts and decisions while committing crimes. Confessions explain how evidence fits together, what might be missing, what is important, and what is not. Confessions can narrow the focus of criminal investigations and reduce resources needed to investigate and prosecute crimes. Many criminal cases would never have been solved were it not for confessions.
Obtaining confessions from criminal suspects can be difficult. Most people who commit crimes want to avoid detection and the punishment that will follow. Guilty suspects rarely confess without some form of persuasion. The process of eliciting confessions from criminal suspects is commonly referred to as interview and interrogation. Definitions vary, but once an officer stops collecting information from a suspect and begins persuading him or her to confess, the officer has moved from an interview to an interrogation.
Most law enforcement officers who conduct criminal investigations receive some form of training in interview and interrogation methods. The Reid Technique is arguably the most recognized method taught to law enforcement personnel in the United States. The method is marketed as a nine-step process, but there are essentially two tactics used. First, investigators convey confidence in a suspect’s guilt. This can start with an accusation, such as: “Based on our investigation, there is no doubt you were involved in this matter.” This type of language is intended to convince guilty suspects that strong evidence has been discovered against them even if the evidence is weak or lacking. Any denials made by the suspect are ignored or stopped as investigators move to the second tactic generally referred to as minimization. This might start with a statement like: “Anyone else may have done the same thing if they were in your shoes.” Investigators then present one or more minimally egregious reasons why the suspect may have committed the crime. A casual observer may find these reasons far-fetched, but guilty suspects tend to consider them as plausible rationalizations for their behavior. Suspects are presented with the prospect of confessing with rationalizations or letting people think the worst. Suspects are then encouraged to act on the former.
The PEACE Model of interviewing is now being taught to law enforcement officers in the United States. This is a form of suspect questioning used primarily in Britain, where tactics like minimization or presentations of false evidence are prohibited. (PEACE is an acronym for the various steps used in the process.) The PEACE Model emphasizes pre-interview planning and encouraging suspects to provide comprehensive information when questioned. After the exchange, suspects may be challenged on any inconsistencies between their statements and the case facts. This is when confessions are most likely to occur using this method. Like the Reid Technique, the PEACE Model has proven to be very effective, but it can also be labor intensive and difficult for some agencies to implement on a routine basis, especially in fast moving investigations.
How False Confessions Happen
While the minimally persuasive PEACE model is the least likely to result in false confessions, any police questioning method can produce false confessions when officers press the boundaries of acceptable tactics. This can happen when motivation to solve a case is high and an innocent suspect is incorrectly assumed to be guilty. Keep in mind that police officers are human. These are people dedicated to protecting the public and seeking justice for victims. In fast moving investigations, they must rely on their training and instincts, and they sometimes make mistakes. Consider an investigation involving a particularly reprehensible crime. Combine this with a misinterpretation of case facts or reliance on bad information leading an officer to believe they are interviewing a person who is guilty when, in fact, they are innocent. The suspect denies involvement in the crime and, without realizing it, the officer intensifies their efforts to gain a confession to a level that is now being perceived by the suspect as a relentless and unending demand for a confession. Believing that a confession will end their misery and surely be discovered false, the innocent suspect underestimates the danger of confessing to a crime they did not commit and concedes to the officer’s demands. This is how false confessions can happen and why false confessions frequently contain equivocal verbiage and information that has been corrected because it did not initially agree with evidence in the case. This is a result of suspects guessing and responding to cues from investigators when deciding what their confessions need to say. In rare cases, innocent individuals have falsely confessed after police questioning actually convinced them they had committed a crime.
Reducing False Confessions
The exposure and notoriety of wrongful convictions in recent years has led to findings that can be used to reduce the occurrence of false confessions. Specifically, researchers have identified multiple dispositional and situational risk factors associated with false confessions. Overrepresented in the cases of known false confessions are juveniles and intellectually impaired adults subjected to tactics such as lengthy interrogations, minimization, presentations of false evidence, or combinations thereof. To reduce false confessions, law enforcement officers must understand how they might inadvertently drive an innocent person to confess. They must also be trained to identify individuals who are susceptible to false confessions and adjust questioning tactics to prevent false confessions in these situations. Officers must know what false confessions sound and look like. They must also understand the importance of corroborating confessions with other evidence to ensure their reliability. Without proper training, officers may mistakenly believe false confessions to be true. This can derail investigations and destroy the lives of innocent people.
Preventing False Confessions from Leading to Wrongful Convictions
Many notable wrongful convictions were based on false confessions involving written statements or recordings that only captured a suspect confessing and not the events that preceded it. Advocates for the wrongly convicted believe complete recordings would have revealed the unreliable nature of these confessions. As a result, groups like the Innocence Project have encouraged governments to require recordings of suspect questioning from start to finish. As of March 2020, 26 states and some federal agencies, to include the FBI, have adopted mandatory requirements for recording suspect interviews (as PD&A experts have encouraged since 1983).
Recordings of interviews and interrogations are only helpful if the people reviewing them know what to look for. Training can help prosecutors and defense attorneys recognize when inappropriate questioning techniques have been used and when confessions contain indicators that they are false. This allows prosecutors to determine if further investigation is needed and defense attorneys to judge the weight of confession evidence against their clients. Judges and juries can also be educated on the reliability of confession evidence through the testimony of experts familiar with false confessions.
Conclusion
False confessions occur when police officers push the boundaries of conventional questioning methods. False confessions can lead to wrongful convictions when they are allowed to move from interrogation rooms, to prosecutors, and eventually to triers of fact without being exposed as unreliable. To prevent false confessions from occurring, law enforcement officers must understand how they could inadvertently cause innocent people to confess. They must also be trained to identify situations where false confessions are more likely to occur and be prepared to use alternative questioning methods when necessary. To prevent false confessions from leading to wrongful convictions, prosecutors and defense attorneys must be trained to identify them. Judges and juries can also be trained to identify false confessions through the testimony of expert witnesses.
Blake McConnell is a retired Supervisory Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). During his FBI career, Mr. McConnell was a criminal investigator, polygraph examiner, polygraph supervisor, and member of FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit. He currently provides expert services through Park Dietz & Associates and Threat Assessment Group, conducts interviews and polygraphs for a U.S. intelligence agency, and teaches Interview and Interrogation in the Forensic Psychology Program at George Washington University.