A steadily increasing tide of literature has documented the existence and causes of false confession as well as the link between false confession and wrongful conviction of the innocent. This literature has primarily addressed three issues: the manner in which false confessions are generated by police interrogation, individual differences in susceptibility to interrogative influence, and the role false confessions have played in documented wrongful convictions of the innocent. Although the specific mechanisms through which interrogation tactics can induce false confessions, and through which they can exert enhanced influence on vulnerable individuals have been widely addressed in this literature, the processes through which false confessions, once obtained by police, may lead to wrongful conviction have remained largely unaddressed. This article addresses this gap in the literature, examining seven psychological processes linking false confession to wrongful conviction and failures of post-conviction relief: (1) powerful biasing effects of the confession itself, including incorporated “misleading specialized knowledge” (inside crime-relevant knowledge displayed by the suspect in the false confession, but acquired through outside sources (such as the interrogator) rather than in the course of the commission of the crime); (2) tunnel vision and confirmation biases, (3) motivational biases, (4) emotional influences on thinking and behavior; (5) institutional influences on evidence production and decision making; and inadequate context for evaluation of claims of innocence, including (6) inadequate or incorrect relevant knowledge, and (7) progressively constricting relevant evidence. We discuss reciprocal influences of these mechanisms and their biasing impact on the perceptions and behaviors of suspects, investigators, prosecution and defense attorneys, juries, and trial and appellate judges.
American Bar Association. (2003). American Bar Association guidelines for the appointment and performance of defense counsel in death penalty cases. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BedauH. A., & RadeletM. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.
3.
CassellP., & HaymanB. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of the effects of Miranda. UCLA Law Review, 43, 839–931.
4.
CastelleG. & LoftusE. (2001). Misinformation and wrongful convictions. In WesterveltS.D. & HumphreyJ.A. (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice (pp. 17–35). Newark: Rutgers University Press.
5.
ChojackiD.E.CicchiniM.D., & WhiteL.T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law Journal, 40, 1–45.
6.
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
7.
ConneryD. (2008). Foreword. In WellsT. and LeoR. A. (Eds.), The wrong guys: Murder, false confessions and the Norfolk 4, (pp. ix–xi). New York: The New Press.
8.
CostanzoM., & LeoR.A. (2007). Research and expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In CostanzoM.KraussD., & PezdekK. (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 69–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
9.
DaviesS. (2006). The reality of false convessions—lessons of the Central Park Jogger case. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 30, 209–253.
10.
DavisD., & FolletteW. (2002). Rethinking probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling and the postdiction of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133–158.
11.
DavisD., & O'DonohueW. (2004). The road to perdition: Extreme influence tactics in the interrogation room. In O'DonahueW. (Ed.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 897–996). San Diego: Academic Press.
12.
DavisD., & LeoR. A. (2006). Strategies for preventing false confessions and their consequences. In KebbellM. and DaviesG. (Eds.), Practical psychology for forensic investigations and prosecutions (pp. 121–149). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
DavisD., & FriedmanR. D. (2007). Memory for conversation: The orphan child of witness memory researchers. In TogliaM. P.ReadJ. D.RossD. F., & LindsayR. C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. I: Memory for events (pp. 3–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
DavisD.WeaverT., & LeoR. A. (2007, August). Effects of failed polygraph results on true and false confessions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
15.
DavisD.LeoR. A., & FolletteW. C. (2008, March). Recommending false confession for the innocent. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
16.
DavisD., & LoftusE. F. (2009). Expectancies, emotion and memory reports for visual events. In BrockmoleJ. R. (Ed.), The visual world in memory (pp. 178–212). New York: Psychology Press.
17.
DeffenbacherK. A.BornsteinB. H.PenrodS. D., & McGortyE. K. (2004). A meta analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.
18.
DrizinS., & LeoR. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.
19.
EasterbrookJ. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183–201.
20.
ElliotA. J., & DweckC. S. (2005). Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford Publications.
21.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford: Row, Peterson.
22.
FindleyK., & ScottM. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 291–398.
23.
FinkelN. J., & ParrottW. G. (2006). Emotions and culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
FisherS. (1988). In search of the virtuous prosecutor: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 197–261.
25.
FolletteW. C.DavisD., & LeoR. A. (2007). Mental health status and vulnerability to interrogative influence. Criminal Justice, 22, 42–49.
26.
GilovichT. (1991). How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: The Free Press.
27.
GivelberD. (2000). Punishing protestations of innocence: Denying responsibility and its consequences. American Criminal Law Review, 37, 1363–1408.
28.
GrossS.JacobyK.MathesonD.MontgomeryN., & PatelS. (2005). Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–553.
29.
GudjonssonG. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. New York: Wiley.
30.
HammondK. R. (2000). Judgments under stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
HassinR. R.UlemanJ. S., & BarghJ. A. (2005). The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
InbauF. E.ReidJ. E.BuckleyJ. P., & JayneB. C. (2001). Criminal interrogations and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
33.
JonesA., & FitnessJ. (2008). Moral hypervigilance. Emotion, 8(5), 613–627.
34.
JonesE. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117.
35.
JonesE. E., & HarrisV. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.
36.
KassinS., & FongC.T. (1999). “I'm innocent!” Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.
37.
KassinS.GoldsteinC.J., & SavitskyK. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187–203.
38.
KassinS., & GudjonssonG. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 35–67.
39.
KassinS., & NeumannK. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 460–484.
40.
KassinS., & SukelH. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury. Law and Human Behavior. 21, 27–46.
41.
KassinS. M., & McNallK. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251.
42.
LassiterG. D.WareL. J.LindbergM. J., & RatcliffJ. J. (in press). Videotaping custodial interrogations: Toward a scientifically based policy. In LassiterG. D. & MeissnerC. A. (Eds.), Interrogations and confessions: Current research, practice and policy. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
43.
Law and BehaviorHuman. (2006). Special issue: Emotion in legal judgment and decision making, 30(2).
44.
LeoR. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.
45.
LeoR. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
LeoR. A., & OfsheR. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–296.
47.
LeoR. A., & OfsheR. (2001). The truth about false confessions and advocacy scholarship. The Criminal Law Bulletin, 37, 293–370.
48.
LeoR. A.DrizinS.NeufeldP.HallB., & VatnerA. (2006). Bringing reliability back in: False confessions and legal safeguards in the twenty-first century. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 479–539.
49.
LevineL. J., & PizzarroD. A. (2004). Emotion and memory research: A grumpy overview. Social Cognition, 22, 530–554.
50.
MartinD. (2002). Lessons about justice from the laboratory of wrongful convictions: Tunnel vision, the construction of guilt, and informer evidence. UMKC Law Review, 70, 847–864.
51.
MedwedD. (2004). The zeal deal: Prosecutorial resistance to post-conviction claims of innocence. Boston University Law Review, 84, 125–183.
52.
MeissnerC., & KassinS. (2002). “He's guilty!” Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.
53.
MeissnerC. A., & KassinS. M. (2004). “You're guilty, so just confess?! Cognitive and behavioral confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In LassiterG. D. (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions and entrapment (pp. 85–106). New York: Kluwer Academic.
54.
MillerG. R., and BosterF. J. (1977). Three images of the trial: Their implications for psychological research. In SalesB. (Ed.). Psychology in the Legal Process (pp. 19–38). New York: Pocket Books.
55.
NardulliP.EisensteinJ., & FlemingR. (1988). The tenor of justice: Criminal courts and the guilty plea process. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
56.
OfsheR., & LeoR.A. (1997a). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 16, 189–251.
57.
OfsheR., & LeoR. A. (1997b). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979–1122.
58.
Psychological Inquiry. (1999). Special issue on motivated cognition, 10(1).
59.
RedlichA. (In Press). False confessions, false guilty pleas: Similarities and differences. In LassiterD. & MeissnerC. (Eds.), Interrogations and confessions: Current research, practice and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
60.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychologyVol. 10, (pp. 174–221). New York: Academic Press.
61.
SaferM. A.ChristiansonS.-Å., & AutryM. W. (1998). Tunnel memory for traumatic events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 99–117.
62.
ScheckB.NeufeldP., & DwyerJ. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Random House.
63.
State of California v. Cahill, 5 Cal. 4th (1993).
64.
TavrisC., & AronsonE. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts. New York: Harcourt.
65.
ThomasG. (2008). The Supreme Court on trial: How the American justice system sacrifices innocent defendants. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
66.
VrijA. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. (2nd ed.). London: Wiley.
