Confessions after Connelly: An Evidentiary Solution for Excluding Unreliable Confessions

66 Pages Posted: 5 Nov 2009

See all articles by Eugene R. Milhizer

Eugene R. Milhizer

Ave Maria University - Ave Maria School of Law

Date Written: 2008

Abstract

The subject matter of this Article - the criminal justice system’s treatment of unreliable confessions in light of Connelly - is especially appropriate for two reasons. First, and as noted above, Connelly recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary. This passage of time is long enough to allow for an informed retrospective of the decision but not so long that the opportunity for meaningful reform has lapsed. Second, an examination of how to better exclude unreliable and false confessions, which this Article undertakes, is an appropriate companion piece to “Rethinking Police Interrogation: Encouraging Reliable Confessions While Respecting Suspects’ Dignity,” published in 2006. In that article, I proposed changes to police interrogation practices, including Miranda warnings, that encourage the rendering and reception of reliable confessions. Just as this earlier article suggests reforms to maximize truthful confessions, this Article proposes reforms to minimize false confessions. These complementary ends serve a larger goal, which is the defining purpose of a criminal trial: to search for the truth.

Suggested Citation

Milhizer, Eugene R., Confessions after Connelly: An Evidentiary Solution for Excluding Unreliable Confessions (2008). Temple Law Review, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 1-66, Spring 2008, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1499791

Eugene R. Milhizer (Contact Author)

Ave Maria University - Ave Maria School of Law ( email )

1025 Commons Circle
Naples, FL 34119
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
71
Abstract Views
505
Rank
589,797
PlumX Metrics