Bias and Accuracy in the Evaluation of Confession Evidence

Abstract

The preceding chapters in this volume have focused primarily on how inter-rogations are conducted and have shed light on which of the standard inves-tigative approaches used by police are most problematic with regard to producing coerced and/ or false confessions. In this chapter we move from the interrogation room to the courtroom to consider the question of how confession evidence is evaluated once it is introduced at trial. If trial fact finders Gudges and jurors) are in fact good at identifying and discounting problematic confessions-that is, ones that are indeed coerced or false-then the damage caused by errors made in the earlier stages of the crimi-nal-justice process may be contained to some degree. We will review the empirical evidence that speaks to this issue. In addition, we will examine the related question of how evaluations of confession evidence are affected by the format in which it is presented. This issue of presentation format is an especially timely one as many states are currently grappling with how best to capture and later present what transpires during interrogations so as to minimize the possibility of unreliable confessions exerting any influ-ence on trial verdicts.