Illinois Lifeline

              Good examples of this sec-ond
kind of expert are Drs.
Richard Leo and Richard
Ofshe, both well-known
researchers in the field.
Studies show the success
rate in motions to suppress
is between .03 and .07.
Challenging the reliability of
the confession before the
jury is therefore essential.
Unfortunately, more people
have walked on the surface
of the moon than have testi-fied
as false confession ex-perts
per se in Illinois. Illi-nois
courts have decided
jurors do not need to hear
from these experts because
they are themselves experts
in false confessions.
Cont. page 3
By Timothy Capps, Staff Attor-ney
As an active death penalty
practitioner, you are more
likely than anyone to see a
false confession. Police are
pressured to solve high-profile
murders. Standard
interrogation techniques are
psychologically effective,
and the threat of death is a
powerful motivator for an
innocent suspect to confess,
if he is convinced it is his
only chance to save his life.
Studies provide the follow-ing
instructive statistics:
Of 125 known false
confessions, 85% were
in murder cases.
73% of defendants who
went to trial with a
confession later proven
false were convicted
Of more than 200
DNA exonerations,
about 25% involved
false confessions.
If you believe your client
has confessed falsely, you
may consider two kinds of
experts: a forensic psy-chologist
to identify your
client’s vulnerabilities (e.g.
suggestibility), and a false
confession expert to help
the jury understand how
false confessions happen and
give them the tools to assess
the evidence in your case.
THE TRUTH ABOUT FALSE CONFESSIONS
BRAVE NEW WORLD: BRAIN IMAGING IN COURT
By John Price, Staff Mitigator
Colorful brain scan images
are moving from the maga-zine
page and television
screen into the courtroom.
Researchers talk about spe-cific
areas of the brain
linked with reason, impulse
control and even moral
judgment. The potential
for mitigation has not been
lost on lawyers, and we
have already seen the first
use of forensic neuroimag-ing
in courts.
The John T. and Catherine
D. MacArthur Foundation
has given $10 million to
explore the burgeoning
field of “neurolaw.” While
results of the project are
still pending, it is fair to say
that while scientists hold
out great hopes for the fu-ture,
they are cautious for
now, and some fear enthusi-astic
lawyers may try to put
Cont. page 2
OSAD CAPITAL TRIAL ASSISTANCE UNIT
VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2 SUMMER, 2009
THE ILLINOIS LIFELINE
DR. RICHARD OF-SHE
TESTIMONY IN
PEOPLE V. PONTIOUS
“If you put [an innocent sus-pect]
in the position in which
they have to choose between
continuing to tell the truth
and getting the maximum
punishment with absolute
certainty, versus confessing
and being able to get this
over with little or no punish-ment,
a distressed, anxious,
upset person who has been
run through an intense inter-rogation
may make the very
bad decision to go to try to
save their lives by making a
false confession.”
Jury acquitted murder defendant
despite videotaped confession.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
FINGERPRINT TRAP
& NEW CASES
2
DEATH PENALTY
FALL SEMINAR
3
CTAU PROFILE:
TIM CAPPS
3
FORENSICS: BRAINS
IN SCIENCE &
CULTURE
4
COLORADO JURY
SELECTION PLAN
4
ABOUT US &
CONTACT INFO
6
Three cases demon-strate
why Illinois
courts hate your expert
and what you can do
Mitigation
Featured Article