Abstract
This Article analyzes how the current constitutional test formatted in Colorado v. Connelly no longer sufficiently excludes unreliable confessions from being admitted into evidence at trial. In the last twenty years, a multitude of psychological studies have demonstrated that people confess to crimes they did not commit for a range of reasons wider than what is recognized by the Connelly inquiry. This Article analyzes this phenomenon and examines potential methods (both inside and outside the constitutional standard) for preventing these confessions from reaching juries at trial.
Recommended Citation
Daniel Harkins,
Revisiting Colorado v. Connelly: The Problem of False Confessions in the Twenty-First Century,
37
S. Ill. U. L.J.
319
(2013).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol37/iss2/3