Coerced Confessions 25by potentially intimidating authority figures may reveal information they otherwise
would not give without the right to remain silent until counsel is available to them
(Davis v. United States, 1994).
As with many laws, ambiguity exists as to exactly when a subject requests counsel.
For example, during an interrogation the subject states, "Maybe I should talk to
a lawyer." Does the officer interpret this as a clear request to receive counsel? If
so, the interrogator must immediately stop questioning and hold the subject until
a lawyer is available. If not, has the officer breached the subject's Miranda rights,
creating the possibility of coercing a confession?
Three basic rules exist to aid law enforcement agents in understanding whether
a subject is requesting counsel. The first is termed The Threshold of Clarity Rule
and states that the subject's request for counsel meet a "threshold of clarity." Under
this rule, a subject must clearly demonstrate a request for counsel. As one may guess,
this rule is itself somewhat vague and offers no specific guidelines stating what is
"clear."
The second rule related to the right not to self-incriminate is termed the Per
Se Rule. According to this rule, any reference to counsel during an interrogation
session must result in the immediate cessation of questioning and the appointment
of counsel to the subject. This rule has more clarity and leaves little question as to
whether the subject is indeed requesting counsel.
Last, The Clarification Rule states that if a subject makes an ambiguous request
for counsel, the officers may ask for further clarification. However, if the officers,
in their request for clarification, continue to discuss the arrest, the law may be
breached (Davis v. United States, 1994).
Once a subject's Miranda rights are read and the subject waives those rights or
agrees to continue questioning until counsel arrives, the interrogator may then begin
questioning the subject on matters related to the crime. Officers utilize a variety
of techniques in interrogation to provide them with the most important, relevant
information related to the crime. As discussed in other portions of this book, the
significant amount of stress felt by police often leads to an attitude of indifference
or frustration. This results in tactics that ensure quick, albeit often inappropriate,
justice. Given the variety of stressors and their severity, it is understandable why an
officer may use underhanded tactics to obtain a confession.
For example, in the case study provided earlier, the suspect was clearly guilty
of homicide and was identified by a variety of witnesses. The arresting officer,
convinced that the subject is guilty, tries to expedite justice by bringing this crim-
inal the punishment he deserves. Other cases may be encumbered with confusion
and inconsistencies, and officers may then feel the need to use tactics to coerce a
confession.
According to Dripps (1988), there is a conflict in every criminal case between
personal autonomy and the need for evidence. Dripps states that the majority of
confessions do not take place freely and with rational intellect. Rather, confessions
are procured only through manipulation, irrationality of the subject, and mistakes