A Standard Beyond Reason: Urging States to Change Their Confession Law

Coercive police interrogation tactics create psychological pressures that are known to lead to false confessions. False confessions in turn produce the potential for wrongful convictions, imprisoning innocent people for crimes they did not commit. The current legal doctrine surrounding how courts analyze the validity of a suspect’s confession rests on whether the confession was voluntarily made. In making this determination, most courts use a preponderance of the evidence standard, validating a confession upon a finding that it was more likely than not voluntarily given. By implementing a higher standard, such as beyond a reasonable doubt, judges would be forced to more carefully view the circumstances surrounding a confession. Theoretically, a higher standard would lead to fewer confessions being admitted into evidence, which would be especially impactful in cases where a false confession is the only evidence the prosecution has against the defendant. This Note argues that a change is imperative and that state courts must raise their voluntariness standard to limit the number of wrongful incarcerations. Some states, like Massachusetts, have already done this. Additionally, this paper argues that the Massachusetts rule is the best equipped at attacking this issue because it provides multiple barriers to the admission of such evidence and forces members of the jury to more intensely consider the confession and its surrounding circumstances.