his interrogators told Reilly that he failed his lie detector test (a lie), and that the test
indicated that he was guilty even though he couldn’t remember killing his mother.
False Confessions: Popular Belief and Empirical Evidence
CRPR.SAMA.18.08.06 – Understand the evidence-based decision-making ideal as it applies
to false confessions and custodial interrogation. Appreciate the severe losses innocent people
experience when they confess to crimes they didn’t commit.
63. Define the historic phrase “witness against himself.” Give examples of the types of things that are included and not
included within the definition.
The Fifth Amendment provides that, in a criminal case, a person cannot be compelled to be a
“witness against himself.” This essentially means that the government cannot force someone
to give evidence of a testimonial or a communicative nature. Testimony is the content of
things a person says or writes. However, the government can compel citizens to provide other
information. When this information is not testimonial or communicative but is, rather, of a
physical nature or a communication that the person has voluntarily put in writing, obtaining it
does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the following types of incriminating evidence
would not be protected by the Fifth Amendment: handwriting samples, weapons,
photographs, lineup appearances, voice samples, blood samples, and documents required to
be kept by law or voluntarily created.
This is one example of a correct answer, others may apply.
The Constitution and Self-Incrimination
CRPR.SAMA.18.08.02 – Know the constitutional amendments that impact criminal
confessions and the three different approaches to custodial interrogation. Know which stages
of the criminal process are relevant to each.
64. State the reasons for the bright-line rule regarding the warnings to suspects adopted in Miranda v. Arizona. Identify
two circumstances that have to be present before officers are required to give the Miranda warnings. List three types of
questioning for which officers do not have to give the Miranda warnings.
The bright-line rule of Miranda v. Arizona arose because the Court felt custodial
interrogation is “inherently coercive.” Why? Firstly, because suspects are held in strange
surroundings where they are not free to leave or to call for support from others. Secondly,
skilled police officers often use tricks, lies, and psychological pressure to overpower the will
of the suspects. Given these circumstances, the Court felt that strong measures were