Colorado v. Connelly

Sample Answer

Colorado v. Connelly ruled that a confession is admissible as long as there is no police coercion, even if the suspect has a severe mental illness that influenced the confession. The Court's reasoning was that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which governs the voluntariness of confessions, is only concerned with state action. In other words, a confession can only be deemed involuntary if there is a direct link between the state's coercive conduct and the confession. The defendant's internal psychological state, by itself, is not enough to render a confession involuntary.

Expanding the Definition of Coercion

The definition of "coercion" in interrogations should be expanded to include psychological vulnerability and external pressures. While police misconduct is a necessary component of the Court's current definition, a narrow focus on overt police misconduct fails to account for the reality of modern interrogation practices. Psychological vulnerabilities, such as a suspect's age, intellectual disability, or mental illness, can make them more susceptible to police influence. When combined with external pressures, such as deceptive tactics or the threat of a more severe punishment, these factors can easily overbear a person's will, leading to a confession that is not truly voluntary. This expanded definition would align more closely with the underlying principle of the Fifth Amendment—that no person should be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

Pretrial Detention and Plea Bargaining

Issues of pretrial detention and plea bargaining further complicate the voluntariness of confessions by creating powerful incentives that can pressure an innocent person into confessing.

Pretrial Detention: The conditions of pretrial detention can be incredibly coercive. A person who cannot afford bail is held in a jail, often for an extended period, in a state of isolation and uncertainty. This experience can be physically and psychologically taxing, making a suspect desperate for release. An interrogator can exploit this desperation, suggesting that a confession is the "only way out" or the "fastest way to go home." The sheer duration and difficult conditions of pretrial detention can wear down a person's resistance, making them more likely to confess just to escape the immediate hardship, regardless of their actual guilt.

Plea Bargaining: Plea bargaining, while a staple of the U.S. criminal justice system, creates a significant external pressure to confess. In a plea bargain, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or a reduced sentence in exchange for forgoing a trial. This process can be coercive because it presents a defendant with a stark choice: plead guilty and accept a known, often lesser, punishment, or risk a much harsher sentence if they go to trial and are convicted. For an innocent person, the fear of a long sentence, perhaps for a crime they didn't commit, can be a powerful motivator to accept a plea deal and "confess" to a crime they did not commit. This dynamic undermines the voluntariness of the confession, as the decision is often driven by a calculation of risk rather than an admission of guilt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Colorado v. Connelly created a high bar for proving an involuntary confession by requiring direct police coercion. However, this narrow interpretation fails to account for the complex reality of modern interrogations. The definition of coercion should be expanded to recognize how psychological vulnerabilities and external pressures can compromise a confession's voluntariness. Furthermore, issues like pretrial detention and plea bargaining create systemic pressures that can compel even an innocent person to confess, making it more crucial than ever to re-examine the legal stand