Summary of Argument

Judges and jurors harbor the stubborn belief that “innocent people do not confess.” People often find it difficult to fathom that an innocent person would falsely confess to a crime, absent physical force.6 In- deed, a false confession can contain suggestions of veracity, including non-public details about the crime.

But such details can become known to the individual before or during the interrogation through second- hand exposure to facts about the crime and other techniques.

The fact is that there are individuals who confess to crimes that they did not commit. Among the first 347 exonerations in the United States that were based on DNA evidence, false confessions contributed to 28% of those wrongful convictions. Among 1,927 cases in the National Registry of Exonerations, 13% of those wrongfully convicted had falsely confessed. And “the overwhelming majority of false confessions . . . occur in murder cases.”

False confessions are highly likely to be involuntary, as this Court has acknowledged. Indeed, “[t]he primary reason that innocent defendants confess is that they are coerced into doing so.”

Decades of psychological research demonstrate that certain techniques, known as maximization (exaggerating or fabricating the strength of evidence against the accused) and minimization (downplaying the seriousness of an offense through reassurance or excuses), are psychologically coercive. These techniques, both of which were used in the interrogation of petitioner Brendan Dassey, increase the rate of confessions that turn out to be false. See infra section I.

The risk of involuntary false confessions is of particular concern in cases involving juveniles. Studies based on real-world and experimental data demonstrate conclusively that juveniles—because they lack mature judgment and are especially vulnerable to pressure—are far more likely than adults to make false confessions. See infra section II. Research demonstrates the same tendency in individuals with intellectual deficits, for similar but distinct reasons. In particular, individuals with low intelligence have high suggestibility as well as difficulty comprehend- ing legal rights and consequences, both of which render them especially vulnerable to making false confessions under pressure of coercive questioning. See infra section III. Research confirms that “[i]n any discussion of dispositional risk factors for false confession, the two most commonly cited concerns are a suspect’s age . . . and mental impairment.”

This Court recognized these precise risks of coercion decades ago. In 1966, the Court made clear that “coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448 (1966) (quoting Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206 (1960)). The Court also identified types of interrogation techniques that may “undermine[] [the] will to resist,” and “even give rise to a false confession.” Id. at 455 & n.24. The Court highlighted the practice of “posit[ing]” a suspect’s guilt “as a fact,” as well as the technique of “minimiz[ing] the moral seriousness of [an] offense,” such as by “cast[ing] blame on the victim or on society.” Id. at 450.

The Court also established long ago that the voluntariness of a confession, i.e., whether the confession was given freely or as a result of coercion, depends upon “the techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this suspect.” Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 116 (1985). The Court recognized that juveniles and individuals with low intelligence are particularly vulnerable to psychologically manipulative techniques—directing that “the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary” in the case of a juvenile, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55 (1967), and that a suspect’s “mental condition” be weighed as a “significant factor in the ‘voluntariness’ calculus,” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164 (1986). See also Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 442 (1961) (citing “subnormal intelligence” of youth as basis for invalidating confession).

Petitioner’s case exemplifies all three of these significant risk factors. Law enforcement officers used psychologically coercive interrogation techniques when questioning petitioner, who was a juvenile with low intelligence. And the purported confession that resulted from that interrogation “furnished the only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction.” See Pet. App. 40a (Wood, C.J., dissenting).

Review is warranted because the opinion below is contrary to this Court’s clearly established precedent on voluntariness determinations, as illuminated by decades of psychological research. And this case is not unique. Exoneration studies establish that false confessions in jurisdictions around the country are responsible for an unsettlingly high proportion of wrongful convictions, and that juveniles and those with low intelligence are overrepresented among those who are wrongly convicted based on false confessions. Denial of review would have far-reaching harmful consequences, because it would sanction the continued widespread misapplication of this Court’s clear standards on voluntariness determinations. See Pet. Br. 30–35.

Summary of Argument

Judges and juries often believe that innocent people don't confess to crimes. They find it hard to imagine that someone would admit to doing something they didn't do, unless they were forced.

But the truth is, some people do confess to crimes they didn't commit. This happens more often than we might think. Research shows that many people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes admitted to them, even though they were innocent.

A big reason why innocent people might confess is because they are tricked into doing so. Certain ways of questioning people can make them feel pressured and unsure of themselves. This is especially true for young people and people who have difficulty understanding things. These people are more likely to say things they don't mean, even if it means admitting to a crime they didn't commit.

Judges and courts need to be very careful about how they decide whether a confession is truly voluntary. They must take into account the age, intelligence, and other factors of the person making the confession to make sure they were not tricked into confessing to something they didn't do.

Summary of Argument

This brief argues that the court should review a case involving a juvenile with low intelligence who confessed to a crime during a coercive interrogation. The argument asserts that false confessions, particularly by vulnerable individuals like juveniles and those with intellectual disabilities, are a serious problem and contribute to wrongful convictions. The brief highlights the psychological research on coercive interrogation techniques and the vulnerabilities of these populations. It emphasizes that these confessions are involuntary and violate established legal precedent regarding voluntariness in confessions.

Judges and juries often believe that "innocent people do not confess." However, psychological research and case studies demonstrate that innocent individuals, especially those who are young or have intellectual disabilities, are susceptible to making false confessions, often under pressure during interrogations.

Psychological research has identified specific interrogation techniques that are highly coercive, including maximization (exaggerating evidence) and minimization (downplaying the severity of the crime). These techniques can increase the likelihood of false confessions.

Studies show that juveniles are more likely than adults to make false confessions due to their underdeveloped judgment and susceptibility to pressure. Similarly, individuals with intellectual deficits are also at a higher risk of making false confessions due to their suggestibility and difficulty understanding legal rights and consequences.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the risks of coerced confessions, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. The court has established standards regarding the voluntariness of confessions and the need for careful consideration of factors like age and mental condition. This case, involving a juvenile with low intelligence who confessed during a coercive interrogation, directly challenges these established legal standards.

The brief argues that the lower court's decision is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedent and ignores the significant body of research on false confessions. Denying review would have serious consequences, as it would perpetuate the wrongful convictions of individuals who have been coerced into confessing. The court's review is crucial to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals and ensure that justice is served.

Summary of Argument

This document presents arguments against the conviction of Brendan Dassey, arguing that his confession was not voluntary and that he was coerced into confessing. The document focuses on the vulnerability of juveniles and individuals with low intelligence to false confessions during interrogations.

Judges and juries often believe that innocent people wouldn't confess to a crime. They have a hard time understanding why an innocent person would admit to a crime they didn't commit, unless they were forced. However, false confessions can include details that seem real, even though they may be incorrect.

These details could have been learned before or during the questioning. They could be based on what the person heard about the crime or because of other interrogation methods used.

False confessions are often involuntary, meaning they are not given freely. The main reason people confess falsely is because they are pressured into doing so.

Decades of research in psychology have shown that certain interrogation techniques are like mind control. These techniques are called "maximization" and "minimization." Maximization means exaggerating or making up evidence against the person being questioned. Minimization means making the crime seem less serious by reassuring or making excuses for the person. These techniques, which were used on Brendan Dassey, increase the chance of a false confession.

Juveniles are especially at risk of making involuntary false confessions. Research shows that young people, because they aren't fully grown up and are easily influenced, are more likely to falsely confess than adults. The same is true for people with intellectual disabilities. People with lower intelligence are easily influenced and have trouble understanding their legal rights and the consequences of their actions. These factors make them more likely to falsely confess when pressured during questioning.

The Supreme Court has long recognized the risks of coercion during interrogations. In 1966, the Court stated that coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that it's not just physical abuse that makes a confession invalid. The Court also identified interrogation techniques that can weaken a person's will to resist and can lead to false confessions. These techniques include pretending that a suspect is guilty and making the crime seem less serious by blaming the victim or society.

The Court has also recognized that a confession is only voluntary if it is given freely and not as a result of coercion. This means that the methods used to get the confession and the person being questioned must be considered. The Court has said that special care needs to be taken with juveniles to make sure their confession was voluntary and that a person's mental condition is a major factor in deciding if a confession was voluntary.

Brendan Dassey's case is a perfect example of all three risk factors: he was a juvenile with low intelligence who was questioned using psychologically manipulative techniques. His supposed confession was the only real evidence used against him at his murder trial.

The lower court's decision goes against the Supreme Court's past rulings on the voluntariness of confessions. This is supported by decades of psychological research. This case isn't unique. Studies have shown that false confessions are a major reason for wrongful convictions across the country, and that juveniles and those with lower intelligence are disproportionately represented among those wrongly convicted based on false confessions. If the Supreme Court doesn't review this case, it would be a problem because it would mean that the Court's clear standards on voluntariness are being ignored.

Summary of Argument

Sometimes people tell the police they did something bad, even if they didn't. This is called a false confession. Many people think innocent people wouldn't confess to a crime, but that's not always true. Sometimes people are tricked into confessing. This can happen when they are young, or they don't understand things very well.

Lots of studies show that young people and people who don't understand things very well are more likely to confess to crimes they didn't do. They can be easily pressured by the police, and they might not understand their rights.

It's important to be careful when someone confesses to a crime, especially if they are young or don't understand things very well. We need to make sure that their confession is true, and not just something they said because they were tricked.