INTRODUCTION AND 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. Indeed, 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 secondhand 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 comprehending 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

Judges and juries often believe that innocent individuals do not confess to crimes. It is difficult for many to accept that someone would falsely admit guilt, especially when a confession includes details about the crime that seem to confirm its truthfulness. However, individuals can learn such details before or during questioning from other sources or through specific interrogation methods.

Some individuals do confess to crimes they did not commit. False confessions were a factor in 28% of the first 347 wrongful convictions in the United States that were later overturned by DNA evidence. Among 1,927 cases listed in the National Registry of Exonerations, 13% involved false confessions. The majority of these false confessions occur in murder cases.

False confessions are frequently made under pressure, as the legal system has recognized. The main reason innocent people confess is due to coercion. Psychological research over several decades shows that certain interrogation methods are psychologically coercive. These methods include "maximization," where interrogators exaggerate or invent evidence against a suspect, and "minimization," where they downplay the seriousness of the offense through reassurances or excuses. Both techniques were used when Brendan Dassey was questioned and are known to increase the likelihood of false confessions.

The risk of involuntary false confessions is particularly high with juveniles. Studies using real-world and experimental data consistently show that young people are more prone to making false confessions than adults because they lack mature judgment and are easily influenced. Similar, but distinct, reasons apply to individuals with intellectual disabilities. Those with lower intelligence are highly suggestible and struggle to understand legal rights and consequences, making them especially vulnerable to false confessions when subjected to coercive questioning. Research confirms that age and mental impairment are the two most common risk factors for false confessions.

The courts acknowledged these risks of coercion many years ago. In 1966, it was clarified that coercion can be mental, not just physical, and that physical harm is not the only sign of an unconstitutional interrogation. The court also identified interrogation techniques that could "undermine a person's will to resist" and potentially lead to a false confession. These included stating a suspect's guilt as a fact and minimizing the crime's seriousness by blaming the victim or society.

The courts also established that whether a confession is voluntary, meaning freely given without coercion, depends on "the techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this suspect." It was recognized that juveniles and individuals with low intelligence are particularly susceptible to psychologically manipulative tactics. Therefore, "the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary" for a juvenile, and a suspect's "mental condition" must be considered a "significant factor in the 'voluntariness' calculus."

The petitioner's case demonstrates all three of these significant risk factors. Law enforcement officers used psychologically coercive interrogation methods on the petitioner, who was a juvenile with low intelligence. The resulting confession was the "only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction."

A review of this case is necessary because the lower court's decision goes against established legal precedent regarding voluntary confessions, as further explained by psychological research. This case is not isolated. Studies on exonerations show that false confessions across the country account for a concerning number of wrongful convictions, and that juveniles and individuals with low intelligence are disproportionately represented among those wrongly convicted due to false confessions. Not reviewing this case would have serious negative consequences, as it would allow for the continued widespread incorrect application of the court's clear standards for determining confession voluntariness.

Introduction and Summary of Argument

Many judges and jurors believe that innocent individuals do not confess to crimes. It can be hard for people to understand that someone innocent might falsely admit guilt, unless physical force was involved. Yet, a false confession can seem truthful, sometimes including details about the crime that were not publicly known.

However, a person can learn these details before or during questioning through various means, such as hearing about the facts of the crime from others.

The reality is that some individuals confess to crimes they did not commit. Among the first 347 exonerations in the United States based on DNA evidence, false confessions played a role in 28% of those wrongful convictions. In a larger group of 1,927 cases in the National Registry of Exonerations, 13% of those wrongly convicted had falsely confessed. Most false confessions happen in murder cases.

False confessions are highly likely to be involuntary, a point this Court has recognized. The main reason innocent defendants confess is due to coercion.

Decades of psychological research show that certain techniques are psychologically coercive. These include maximization, which means exaggerating or making up evidence against a suspect, and minimization, which involves downplaying the seriousness of an offense through reassurance or excuses. Both techniques were used during the questioning of Brendan Dassey, and they increase the likelihood of false confessions.

The risk of involuntary false confessions is particularly high with juveniles. Studies using real-world and experimental data clearly show that juveniles are much more likely than adults to make false confessions. This is because they lack mature judgment and are easily pressured. Research shows a similar pattern in individuals with intellectual deficits, for related but distinct reasons. People with low intelligence are highly suggestible and often struggle to understand legal rights and consequences, making them especially vulnerable to false confessions under coercive questioning. Discussions about factors that increase the risk of false confessions often highlight a suspect's age and mental impairment.

This Court recognized these risks of coercion many decades ago. In 1966, the Court clarified that coercion can be mental, not just physical, and that physical injury is not the only sign of an unconstitutional interrogation. The Court also identified types of interrogation techniques that can weaken a person's will to resist and even lead to a false confession. This included stating a suspect's guilt as a fact, and downplaying the moral seriousness of an offense, for example, by blaming the victim or society.

The Court also established that whether a confession is voluntary—meaning given freely and not due to coercion—depends on the methods used to get the statements, as applied to that specific suspect. The Court acknowledged that juveniles and individuals with low intelligence are particularly vulnerable to psychologically manipulative techniques. It stressed that the greatest care must be taken to ensure a juvenile's admission was voluntary, and that a suspect's mental condition is a significant factor in determining voluntariness. The Court has previously cited the subnormal intelligence of a young person as a reason to invalidate a confession.

Brendan Dassey's case shows all three of these significant risk factors. Law enforcement officers used psychologically coercive interrogation techniques when questioning him. At the time, he was a juvenile with low intelligence. The confession that resulted from this questioning was the only strong evidence supporting his murder conviction.

Review of this case is necessary because the lower court's decision goes against this Court's clear precedents on determining voluntariness, which are supported by decades of psychological research. This case is not unique. Studies of exonerations show that false confessions are responsible for a concerning number of wrongful convictions across the country. Juveniles and individuals with low intelligence are overrepresented among those wrongly convicted based on false confessions. If review is denied, it would have widespread negative consequences, as it would permit the continued widespread misapplication of this Court's clear standards for voluntariness.

Summary

Judges and jurors often believe that innocent people do not confess to crimes. It is difficult for many to imagine someone falsely admitting guilt without physical force. However, false confessions can include details about the crime that seem accurate. These details can become known to a person before or during questioning, through hearing facts about the crime or other methods.

Individuals sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit. False confessions contributed to 28% of the first 347 DNA-based exonerations in the United States. Out of 1,927 cases in the National Registry of Exonerations, 13% of wrongfully convicted individuals had falsely confessed. The majority of false confessions happen in murder cases.

False confessions are often involuntary, meaning they are not given freely. The main reason innocent people confess is because they are pressured into it. Psychological research shows that certain techniques, such as exaggerating evidence (maximization) or downplaying the crime's seriousness (minimization), are psychologically coercive. These methods, used in Brendan Dassey's questioning, increase the number of false confessions.

The risk of involuntary false confessions is especially high for young people. Studies show that juveniles are more likely than adults to make false confessions because they lack mature judgment and are easily influenced. The same tendency is seen in individuals with intellectual disabilities. People with low intelligence are highly suggestible and struggle to understand legal rights and consequences, making them very vulnerable to false confessions under pressure. A suspect's age and mental impairment are two key factors that increase the risk of a false confession.

The Court recognized these risks of coercion decades ago. In 1966, the Court stated that coercion can be mental, not just physical. The Court also identified interrogation methods that could break someone's will to resist and lead to a false confession. These included stating a suspect's guilt as a fact and minimizing the crime's seriousness, for example, by blaming the victim or society.

The Court also established that whether a confession is voluntary depends on the questioning methods used and how they affected the suspect. The Court acknowledged that young people and those with low intelligence are particularly vulnerable to psychologically manipulative techniques. It emphasized the need for extreme care to ensure a juvenile's admission was voluntary and that a suspect's mental condition is a significant factor in determining if a confession was voluntary.

Brendan Dassey's case shows all three of these risk factors. Law enforcement officers used psychologically coercive interrogation techniques when questioning him. At the time, he was a juvenile with low intelligence. The confession from that questioning was the only strong evidence supporting his murder conviction.

A review of this case is necessary because the lower court's decision goes against the Court's established rules on determining voluntary confessions, which are supported by decades of psychological research. This case is not unique. Studies on exonerations show that false confessions are responsible for a concerning number of wrongful convictions across the country. Juveniles and those with low intelligence are disproportionately represented among those wrongly convicted due to false confessions. Not reviewing this case would have significant negative consequences, as it would allow the continued widespread misapplication of the Court's clear standards for determining voluntary confessions.

Summary

Judges and juries often believe that people who are innocent do not confess to crimes. It is hard for many to believe that an innocent person would say they did something wrong, unless someone made them do it physically. Sometimes, a false confession can even have true details about the crime.

But people can learn facts about a crime in other ways. They might hear details before or during questioning by police.

The truth is, some people do confess to crimes they did not do. Out of the first 347 people in the United States freed by DNA evidence, false confessions were a part of 28% of those wrong convictions. From a list of 1,927 cases where people were freed, 13% had confessed falsely. Most false confessions happen in murder cases.

False confessions are very likely to be forced, as courts have said. The main reason innocent people confess is because they are made to do it.

Many years of studies about how people think show that some police methods can make people confess falsely. These methods include making evidence seem stronger than it is (called maximization) or making the crime seem less serious (called minimization). Both of these methods were used when Brendan Dassey was questioned. They make it more likely that people will confess to things they didn't do.

The danger of false confessions is even bigger when young people are involved. Studies show that young people are more likely than adults to confess to crimes they didn't do. This is because they don't think as clearly and are easily pressured. Studies also show the same problem with people who have trouble thinking. These people are easily tricked and have a hard time understanding their legal rights. This makes them more likely to confess falsely when pressured.

Courts have known about these risks for a long time. In 1966, the Supreme Court said that being forced to confess can be mental, not just physical. The Court also pointed out questioning methods that can make a person give up and confess falsely. This includes saying that someone's guilt is a fact or making the crime seem less serious.

The Court also decided a long time ago that whether a confession was given freely depends on the methods used and the person being questioned. The Court knew that young people and those with low intelligence are easily tricked. They said that "greatest care" must be taken with young people to make sure a confession was given freely. They also said that a suspect's "mental condition" is an important part of deciding if a confession was given freely.

Brendan Dassey's case shows all these risk factors. Police used tricky questioning methods on him. He was young and had low intelligence. The confession he gave was the only real evidence used to say he committed murder.

This case should be looked at again because the lower court's decision goes against past court rules. Many studies show that false confessions cause many wrong convictions. Young people and those with low intelligence are often wrongly convicted because of false confessions. If this case is not reviewed, it will allow courts to keep making mistakes about false confessions.