Summary of Argument

“People who are innocent don’t confess.” So said the State’s attorney to the jury that sentenced sixteenyear-old, intellectually-disabled Brendan Dassey to life in prison. Dist. Ct. Dkt. 19-23, at 144:13 (closing argument). But as every experienced prosecutor knows, sometimes innocent people do confess. And because of their age and mental development, children are particularly susceptible to falsely confessing. That is why this Court has long held that juveniles need to be treated with special care, and that courts must evaluate their confessions in light of their age and intelligence.

Unfortunately, in the workaday of the criminal justice system, that message has been lost in the lower courts, which have often failed to adequately account for the age and mental deficits of juveniles who confess to crimes. The proof is in the numerous DNA and other exonerations of wrongly convicted adolescents who lost their childhoods after courts found their false confessions to be voluntary and reliable.

The present case presents a particularly egregious and high-profile example of the problem. The state courts gave only glancing consideration of petitioner’s young age and low IQ in the face of multiple interrogations over forty-eight hours—interrogations in which two investigators asked “questions to which the police furnished the answers,” promised that petitioner’s responses would “set him free,” and engaged in “games of ‘20 Questions,’ in which Brendan Dassey guessed over and over again before he landed on the ‘correct’ story.” App. 40a, 46a (Wood, C.J., dissenting).

The interrogations of Dassey aptly illustrate one of the core reasons why courts must be ever vigilant in evaluating confessions by juveniles: the often toxic interaction of standard police interrogation techniques with minors’ unique vulnerabilities. While a leading law enforcement association has proposed best practices for interrogating juveniles, most jurisdictions employ one-size-fits-all interrogation techniques for adults and juveniles alike. But techniques that can effectively produce voluntary and reliable confessions for an average adult can have devastating, unintended consequences when applied to kids.

Here, those standard techniques led a learningdisabled sixteen-year-old to believe that he would be free to return to his sixth period class at school after he confessed to rape, murder, and mutilation of a corpse—a confession starkly at odds with the physical evidence. When Dassey’s mother later asked him how he came up with details in the confession, he said, “I guessed.” Chided by his mother, “You don’t guess with something like this, Brendan,” Dassey replied, “Well, that’s what I do with my homework.” Dist. Ct. Dkt. 19-46. The awkwardly silent, intellectually and socially vulnerable teenager with no past prior criminal record told his mom: “They got to my head.” App. 503a.

Review is needed to revitalize a critical check on convictions secured through these interrogation techniques on our most vulnerable citizens. Doing so will have the ancillary effect of helping deter coerced and unreliable confessions on the front end by encouraging law enforcement to adopt juvenile interrogation best practices. The result will be fewer innocent kids getting locked up, and fewer guilty individuals free to victimize again.

Finally, amici submit that review of this particular case is needed to restore the public’s confidence in the justice system. Millions of Americans watched the video of Dassey’s interrogations in the award-winning documentary Making a Murderer, prompting a public outcry over the obvious failure of the system. The dissenters in the closely divided 4-3 decision below likewise found that the interrogation video “speaks for itself,” and decried this case a “travesty of justice,” App. 40a, 67a (Wood, C.J., dissenting), and “a profound miscarriage of justice,” id. at 70a (Rovner, J., dissenting).

This Court has long recognized that “to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) (citation omitted). Only this Court can restore the appearance—and reality—of justice here.

Summary of Argument

The State's assertion that innocent individuals do not confess is a common misconception. This is especially true in the case of juveniles, whose developmental vulnerabilities make them susceptible to false confessions. While courts have historically acknowledged the need for heightened scrutiny of juvenile confessions, this principle has been inconsistently applied in practice, resulting in the wrongful convictions of numerous adolescents.

The case of Brendan Dassey, a sixteen-year-old with an intellectual disability, exemplifies this issue. Despite his youth and cognitive limitations, Dassey was subjected to multiple interrogations over a forty-eight-hour period. During these interrogations, investigators employed techniques that included providing answers to their own questions, promising Dassey's freedom in exchange for confessions, and engaging in leading "games of '20 Questions.'" These tactics, common in adult interrogation practices, can have particularly damaging consequences when applied to juveniles.

Dassey's case underscores the critical need for courts to rigorously evaluate confessions obtained from juveniles. The use of standard interrogation techniques on individuals with developmental vulnerabilities can lead to false confessions, particularly when those techniques are not tailored to the unique needs and vulnerabilities of minors.

The Court's review of Dassey's case is essential to revitalize the principle of careful scrutiny of juvenile confessions, deterring future instances of coerced and unreliable confessions. This review would also encourage law enforcement agencies to adopt best practices for interrogating juveniles, thereby reducing the number of innocent children wrongfully incarcerated. Furthermore, public confidence in the justice system is at stake. The widespread attention and concern generated by the documentary "Making a Murderer," which prominently featured Dassey's case, highlight the public's perception of a flawed system.

The Court's intervention is crucial to restoring both the appearance and reality of justice in Dassey's case, ensuring that the public can trust in the fairness of the system.

Summary of Argument

The case of Brendan Dassey, a sixteen-year-old with intellectual disabilities, highlights the issue of false confessions from juveniles. Despite the recognition that juveniles require special consideration due to their vulnerability, lower courts often fail to adequately assess the age and mental capacity of confessing minors.

Dassey’s case exemplifies the problem: he was interrogated over forty-eight hours, during which investigators used leading questions, promised freedom for confessing, and employed “20 Questions” tactics to elicit a confession. His confession, which contradicted physical evidence, was ultimately attributed to his willingness to “guess” the answers he believed would set him free. This case underscores the need for vigilant scrutiny of confessions from juveniles, especially in light of the potential for interrogation techniques that are effective with adults to have unintended negative consequences for minors.

Review of this case is essential to revitalize protections for vulnerable citizens and encourage law enforcement to adopt best practices for interrogating juveniles. This will reduce the number of innocent children incarcerated and prevent guilty individuals from re-offending. Moreover, the high profile nature of the case, with millions of viewers exposed to Dassey’s interrogations in the documentary Making a Murderer, necessitates a review to restore public trust in the justice system. As the Court has stated, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Only the Supreme Court can rectify this situation and ensure both the appearance and reality of justice are served.

Summary of Argument

The case of Brendan Dassey, a sixteen-year-old with intellectual disabilities, highlights a critical issue in the criminal justice system: the susceptibility of juveniles to false confessions. While courts recognize the need for special care when dealing with juveniles, lower courts often fail to adequately consider their age and mental capabilities when evaluating confessions.

Dassey's case exemplifies this problem. Despite his young age and low IQ, he was subjected to multiple interrogations over forty-eight hours, during which investigators used techniques that pressured him to confess to crimes he did not commit. The investigators even provided answers to their own questions, creating an atmosphere of coercion and confusion.

This case demonstrates the potential dangers of using standard interrogation techniques on juveniles, who are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and pressure. The use of such techniques on a learning-disabled teenager, leading him to believe that confessing would set him free, resulted in a confession that was inconsistent with the physical evidence.

This case warrants review by the Supreme Court to revitalize the protection of juveniles from coerced confessions and to encourage law enforcement to adopt best practices for interrogating minors. The public outcry over Dassey's case, fueled by the documentary "Making a Murderer," underlines the need for the Court to restore confidence in the justice system by ensuring that juveniles are not wrongfully convicted based on unreliable confessions.

Summary of Argument

Brendan Dassey, a sixteen-year-old with a lower IQ, was sentenced to life in prison for murder. He confessed to the crime during questioning by police. However, Dassey’s confession was made during a long interrogation where police asked him questions and then gave him the answers. He told his mom he “guessed” at the answers, and he said, “They got to my head.”

This is an example of how police questioning can lead to false confessions from kids. Police techniques that work for grown-ups don’t work well for kids, who are more likely to confess to things they didn’t do.

The case shows that the courts need to be more careful about how they look at confessions from young people. That will help stop innocent kids from being locked up and protect people from being hurt. It will also make sure that the justice system is fair and honest.