Police Deception and Lies in Interrogations: Voluntary Confessions

Police suspect Mr. Smith in the rape and murder of Ms. Jones. In order to encourage him to confess, officers put together two official-looking (albeit bogus) reports indicating that DNA tests on blood samples found on Ms. Jones show that the blood was Smiths. They bring Smith in for questioning and read him his Miranda rights. Smith denies everything. When confronted with the phony "evidence," Smith confesses. At his trial, he challenges admission of the confession. What result?

Bryan Katz

Emory Law

(1) Deceptive statements by the police to a suspect made in order to induce a confession do not automatically render a subsequent confession in admissible as involuntary or coercive.  The police tactics must not violate the due process rights of the defendant.

(2) However, in this case the Florida court drew a distinction between false verbal statements and manufactured false documents.  Generally, the police can make fairly egregious false verbal statements so long as they do not promise the defendant any actual reward beyond a recommendation to the state's attorney as the result of his confession.  However, in this case the Court held that the falsification of documents crossed the line and violated the defendant's right to due process.  They so held due to the practical problems associated with fabricating documents including the possibility that they may be confused with real documents at some point.  Additionally, the Court felt that it undermined the public's confidence in the criminal justice system.

See Florida v. Cayward, 552 So.2d 971 (Fl. 1989).