Coerced Confessions: Arizona v. Fulminante
In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Supreme Court ruled that “coerced confessions” may be admitted as trial evidence in some cases, changing a pos… read more
In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Supreme Court ruled that “coerced confessions” may be admitted as trial evidence in some cases, changing a position that dates back almost 100 years. The vote was 5-4, with Judge Rehnquist writing the opinion. The change is directly related to the “harmless error” appellate court doctrine. This typically involves circumstances where a trial judge has made an honest mistake in court procedure, and the appellate court decides that a new trial is not needed because the jury would have reached the same verdict based on the strength of other evidence. This comes out of the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Prof. Wasserstrom said he thought the media was exaggerating the importance of the decision. “I don’t think, as a practical matter, there will be many cases where the appellate court will find there’s a(harmless) error.” close
Related Video
-
Toxic Cleanup Liability: Jones v. Beazer
Arguments were presented in Jones-Hamilton Company v. Beazer Materials. The case involved which of two companies was res…
-
Covering the 'New' Supreme Court
ABC News correspondent Tim O’Brien, spoke to the Washington Council of Lawyers about covering the United States Supreme …
-
Judicial Affairs
U.S. Court of Appeal Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded to questions on her legal career, including her tenure as a law…
-
Supreme Court Issues
After an introduction by Senator Mitch McConnell, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to students and faculty at the…