Practice Areas

Steakley Law Firm

John A. Steakely

Attorney John Steakley is a 1996 graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law. He began his career as the Special Prosecutor for Drug Crimes for a multi-county, multi-agency drug task force in Tennessee, where he represented the State of Tennessee in thousands of felony and misdemeanor cases in a 5-county judicial district.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that has been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login

False Confessions Plague Criminal Justice System With Wrongful Convictions and Wrongful "Guilty" Pleas

Posted by on in Criminal Defense Blog
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3401
  • 0 Comments
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recent article raises the issue of the false confession and the troubles they cause. 

 

From Advocate Daily

 

We would like to think our criminal justice system is infallible. Unfortunately, it is not

 

In a system built on the Blackstone principle that we would rather see 10 guilty defendants go free than one innocent person convicted, wrongful convictions continue to occur. . . .

 

Causes of this phenomenon are widespread. No party to the process can claim immunity from the problem. Among the legal participants, often cited causes are tunnel vision or misconduct on the part of police and prosecutors, ineffective assistance of defense counsel, and judicial error such as allowing questionable evidence or giving poor jury instructions. External factors include charlatan “experts,” junk science, faulty eyewitness testimony and unreliable witnesses.

 

One common cause of wrongful conviction is particularly troubling — false confessions. The layperson looking in on one of these cases invariably asks: Unless it were true, who would confess to something they did not do, let alone to a crime that carries a life sentence? Can such a detailed confession, so true to the facts of the crime, be false? Rationalizations like these are alluring for their simplicity and appeal to “common sense” — unfortunately they compound the problem and make it extremely difficult to unravel the conviction.

 

The first response to these “common sense” arguments is that false confessions do happen.

 

This year, the Innocence Network, an association of organizations primarily in the United States with affiliates around the world, including three in Canada, announced its 300th DNA-based exoneration, most of them through the Innocence Project in New York. In 27 per cent of these 300 exonerations, a false confession or admission had contributed to the wrongful conviction.

 

It begs the question of how many more are out there that cannot be proved false by irrefutable evidence, such as DNA.

 

Another response is to attack the “common sense” idea that people do not falsely confess to crimes. The justice system is resistant to this and for good reason: the confession is the most powerful piece of evidence that can enter a trial. A confession is damning to a trier of fact; any attempt to chip away at the clarity it brings to criminal litigation will be met with obvious resistance.

 

The battle against false confessions is similar to the battle to prevent faulty eyewitness identifications, except for the fact it is still at the frontier stages in comparison.

 

To understand the phenomenon of a false confession, we need to appreciate the type of pressure that a person in a police interview faces that the average observer cannot comprehend. From the known cases, we can extract various circumstances and behaviours that exacerbate or give rise to false confessions, including: coercion, undue influence and promises, impairment by drugs or alcohol, diminished capacity, desire for notoriety, physical violence and threats, fear of consequences and denial of right to counsel.

 

The process of effecting change to prevent false confessions can only begin with education. The visceral reaction to hearing a confession is to accept that it must be true. This response needs to be replaced by an intuitive reply that questions it and asks what caused that confession to happen? The focus must be on the situational forces that led to the confession, rather than on the assumption that the person must be guilty and therefore spoke honestly. How would an innocent person facing probing and relentless interrogation react to the situation? Is it possible that falsely confessing just to free oneself from the ordeal is one response? Given the empirical data that 27 per cent of DNA exonerations involved false confessions — a fact that cannot be ignored — the answer must be yes.

 

Why do we instinctively look askance at the suggestion that a confession might be false? The answer may lie in a well known social psychological concept: People tend to overrate the value of dispositional explanations for behaviour over situational factors.

 

It is easier to blame someone’s personal actions or disposition rather than look at the surrounding factors for the explanation. Much like the vice-president who automatically concludes that the manager is lazy or inept (dispositional factors) for not completing the report on time rather than looking at the extent of his/her workload (situational factors), the layperson simply concludes that the defendant was obviously guilty (dispositional ) while wholly discounting the effects of the interrogation process, undue pressure, etc. (situational).

 

False confessions are a complex and controversial source of wrongful conviction. Preventing them requires awareness and acceptance of the root causes.

 

In addition to the false confessions that are overturned by DNA evidence, there are some other more famous false confession cases (that I will address in another blog entry) that get overturned years later because the actually guilty party comes forward and gives a real confession. 

 

Many of these false confessions aren't recorded, so it's sometimes just the word of the defendant against two or more police officers whether a confession happened at all.  There's really no excuse in this day and age for these things not to be recorded, but there's NO REQUIREMENT that the police record your statement.  This is a very good reason why you shouldn't talk to the police AT ALL, because they may claim you said something very different than what yous said.  Get a lawyer and remain silent.  Always.

 

John

0

Attorney John Steakley is a 1996 graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law. He began his career as the Special Prosecutor for Drug Crimes for a multi-county, multi-agency drug task force in Tennessee, where he represented the State of Tennessee in thousands of felony and misdemeanor cases in a 5-county judicial district.


He was selected by the National College of District Attorneys to attend advanced legal seminars in Santa Fe, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Houston. In 2000, he was appointed to the position of Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee by Attorney General Janet Reno, and reappointed again the following year.


In 2001, he accepted an offer from the Gwinnett County District Attorneys Office and spent the next four years representing the State of Georgia in several hundred serious felony cases.   He continues to handle the most serious of cases, often winning outright dismissals of charges, or significant reductions for his clients.  For more about the type of cases Mr. Steakley has handled, click here:  Selected Criminal Cases


SteakleyCh5336x280In 2006 he was a founding partner of Crosby, Haldi & Steakley, LLC, located in Decatur.  Now in private practice since 2007 as John A. Steakley, P.C., headquartered in Marietta, he represents individuals in a wide variety of matters, using his experience to provide his clients with quality legal representation. He is licensed to practice law in both Tennessee and Georgia, but focuses almost solely on Georgia.  


In 2012, the Georgia Supreme Court certified him as a Mentor for theTransition Into Law Practice Program, serving as a role model and mentoring young attorneys just entering into the practice of law.  This came on the heels of years of coaching the Emory University Law School's Mock Trial Team in how to be effective and successful courtroom litigators.


In addition to advocating for his clients in the courtroom, Mr. Steakley is a strong proponent of individual liberties.  He co-authored a scholarly work on whether the United States Constitution afforded citizens the right to record their interactions with police even in private places.  This article has garnered attention and raised awareness about this timely legal-technology issue, and was named one of the "Must Read Articles of 2012" by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 


He is a member of the Tennessee Bar Association, the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, the Tennessee Court of Civil Appeals, the State Bar of Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court, the Georgia Court of Appeals, Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Gwinnett County Bar Association, and Cobb County Bar Association.


When not practicing law, Mr. Steakley is an instrument-rated private pilot who enjoys flying around the Southeast.  He has been a pilot since 1999.

Comments

Make a Payment

We accept most major credit cards.

pay-now-button

PayPal Acceptance Mark

Contact Us

540 Powder Springs Street
Suite D-22
Marietta, GA 30064

You are here: Home Blogs Criminal Defense Blog John A Steakley False Confessions Plague Criminal Justice System With Wrongful Convictions and Wrongful "Guilty" Pleas