NCJ Number
142613
Journal
New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1993) Pages: 175-200
Date Published
1993
Length
26 pages
Annotation
In Arizona v. Fulminante, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under certain conditions, the admission as evidence of a coerced confession could constitute harmless error. This ruling apparently upset a long-held position that coerced confessions constituted a form of governmental misconduct and thereby required mandatory reversal.
Abstract
Following a review of the facts and procedural history of the case, as well as an analysis of the constitutional issues at stake, the author challenges the widespread belief that Fulminante represents a withdrawal from individual rights. Instead, the ruling increases the protection of individual rights by raising the standard by which the courts must judge coerced confessions, while simultaneously instituting a review measure, namely harmless error analysis, that is consistent with the basic purpose of a criminal trial and with the treatment of other constitutional errors. The author maintains that the ruling applying a harmless error test to coerced confessions actually represents a compromise between criminal rights advocates and law enforcement officers. 187 notes