Conventional wisdom dictates than an innocent person will not be convicted of a crime in America.1 “Like many criminal justice officials, most people appear to believe in what . . . has been labeled ‘the myth of psychological interrogation’: that an innocent person will not falsely confess to a serious crime.”2 This myth, though easily dispelled by psychological and sociological literature on the subject, continues to play an integral role in the criminal justice system.3 Both experimental and field studies demonstrate that criminal officials and jurors place an almost “blind faith in the evidentiary value of confession evidence.”4 This is true even when the confession “[is] not accompanied by any credible corroboration and there [is] compelling
…show more content…
Even more significantly, the increased focus on DNA evidence in the media through popular television shows such as C.S.I, Bones, Law & Order, has led to an increased awareness by the lay person that DNA evidence can be used to establish that person’s guilt or innocence.
With the rise of the use of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, how a State rules on the allowance of falsified evidence to obtain a confession will significantly impact the criminal trial process. Two main arguments govern the use of falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession. The first argument is that this type of interrogation technique should be deemed per se coercion and ruled inadmissible. The second argument is that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should just be one of several factors considered in weighing whether the confession is admissible in a criminal …show more content…
Next the rationales for prohibiting involuntary confessions are discussed. In the United States there is a jurisdictional slit concerning the coerciveness of falsified evidence. This split is explained, with the underlying justifications on each side of the split expounded. Finally, this paper provides a comparative analysis between the two main arguments governing the use of falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession: 1) that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should be deemed per se coercive and inadmissible in criminal cases, or 2) that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should be just one factor weighed in determining whether the confession comes in under a totality of the circumstances test. This study clearly demonstrates that because DNA evidence is more influential than almost any other type of evidence, fabricating DNA evidence is more influential on defendants, under the Rational
Even more significantly, the increased focus on DNA evidence in the media through popular television shows such as C.S.I, Bones, Law & Order, has led to an increased awareness by the lay person that DNA evidence can be used to establish that person’s guilt or innocence.
With the rise of the use of DNA evidence in the criminal justice system, how a State rules on the allowance of falsified evidence to obtain a confession will significantly impact the criminal trial process. Two main arguments govern the use of falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession. The first argument is that this type of interrogation technique should be deemed per se coercion and ruled inadmissible. The second argument is that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should just be one of several factors considered in weighing whether the confession is admissible in a criminal …show more content…
Next the rationales for prohibiting involuntary confessions are discussed. In the United States there is a jurisdictional slit concerning the coerciveness of falsified evidence. This split is explained, with the underlying justifications on each side of the split expounded. Finally, this paper provides a comparative analysis between the two main arguments governing the use of falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession: 1) that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should be deemed per se coercive and inadmissible in criminal cases, or 2) that using falsified DNA evidence to obtain a confession should be just one factor weighed in determining whether the confession comes in under a totality of the circumstances test. This study clearly demonstrates that because DNA evidence is more influential than almost any other type of evidence, fabricating DNA evidence is more influential on defendants, under the Rational