Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Expert Testimony About Interrogation

Techniques and Confessions

Even if the confession has previously been determined to

be admissible, there is case law to support expert testi-

mony about interrogation techniques that heighten the

risk of false, retracted, or distorted confessions. This

expert testimony can focus on individual characteristics

of a defendant such as psychological vulnerabilities (e.g.,

low intelligence), interrogative suggestibility, and com-

pliance. The expert testimony can also describe the

methods used by law enforcement to extract confessions

and how such methods may increase or decrease the reli-

ability of the statements obtained. It can also focus on the

interaction between defendant characteristics and the

interrogation methods employed by law enforcement.

The Reid Technique and similar methods have been

deemed legally permissible interrogation procedures.

Although law enforcement and proponents of this

methodology attest to its effectiveness in producing con-

fessions in guilty suspects, many mental health profes-

sionals specializing in this field believe that these

methods increase the likelihood of false confessions

with certain types of suspects. A confession, or self-

incriminating statement to law enforcement, carries great

weight with the jury. There is disagreement in the field as

to what percentage of defendants actually produces false

confessions. In fact, most people realize that no scientific

estimates can be presently made. It is currently impossi-

ble to accurately assess the number of false confessions

or the percentage of confessions that are false.

Nevertheless, false confessions do occur and there are

individuals who are at a higher risk for producing false

confessions when encountering the Reid Technique.

I. Bruce Frumkin

See alsoBehavior Analysis Interview; Competency to

Confess; False Confessions; Wrongful Conviction

Further Readings

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and

confessions: A handbook.West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Inbau, F., Reid, J., Buckley, J., & Jayne, B. (2001). Criminal

interrogations and confessions(4th ed.). Gaithersburg,

MD: Aspen.

Kassin, S., & Gudjonsson, G. (2004). The psychology of

confessions: A review of the literature and issues.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5,31–67.

Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,266–303.

RELIGION AND THE

DEATHPENALTY

Religion has the ability to affect death penalty trials in

numerous ways. The most studied include the effects

of jurors’ religiosity and religious appeals used by

lawyers during trial. Religion also affects judges’

decisions. Although the study of how religion affects

legal decision making is still in its infancy, religion

has the potential to affect voir dire, trial presentation,

and trial outcomes.

Use of Religion in Voir Dire

Before a trial begins, lawyers have the opportunity to

exclude a set number of potential jurors who they

believe will not favor their client. Lawyers often exclude

potential jurors on the basis of personal characteristics

such as religious beliefs or affiliation. For example,

lawyers have excluded potential jurors because they

were Jewish, Islamic, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholic, or

Pentecostal. Other potential jurors have been excluded

because they had strong religious beliefs, had acted as a

missionary, or had served as a pastor.

State courts are divided on whether the exclusion of

potential jurors based on religion is legally permissible.

Some state courts have held that lawyers can exclude

potential jurors based on any religious variable, while

others have determined that lawyers cannot exclude a

potential juror for any factor related to religion. Still

other courts have created rules that govern the exclu-

sion of jurors. For instance, the court in United States v.

DeJesus(2003) stated that it was permissible to exclude

a juror because of his or her degree of religiosity (e.g.,

how often the juror prayed) but not because of his or

her religious affiliation. The Indiana Supreme Court in

Highler v. State (2006) held that lawyers cannot

exclude a juror because of religious affiliation but that

it is permissible to exclude a juror because his or her

occupation is religious in nature. The U.S. Supreme

Court had the chance to settle the controversy but

declined to do so (Davis v. Minnesota,1994). Thus,

state courts can generally develop their own rules.

Religion and the Death Penalty——— 681

R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 681