The State[s] of Confession Law in a Post-Miranda World

Police interrogators often use lies, threats, subterfuge, and psychological pressure to coerce vulnerable suspects to speak. These tactics produce false confessions, contribute to racial injustice, and undermine the legitimacy of the criminal process. Despite a documented need for better regulation, theU.S. Supreme Court has watered down constitutional protections in the interrogation room, signaling its intent to delegate most regulation of police interrogation practices to the states. Reformers and scholars must think about how best to push states to fill the void left by the absence of federal oversight.

This Article catalogues four different state approaches to regulating confession law: procedural protections, substantive restrictions, rules of adjudication, and changes in police approaches to training. It then draws conclusions about the relative effectiveness of these different approaches in light of currently available empirical, psychological, and sociological research. It argues that substantive restrictions on interrogation practices through rules with robust remedies are the best way to promote lasting change and restore legitimacy to what is currently a broken system. Recognizing that policymakers in different states and localities face different political climates, the Article concludes by outlining a graduated set of reforms that permits policymakers to identify what would be most feasible and effective in their respective jurisdictions.