Kassin’s work is just one part of a much larger field, which includes real-world instances like the Central Park Jogger series of false confessions, the Norfolk Four, and a number of the DNA exoneration cases. To dismiss the field because some studies use students is to miss a very large problem in the justice system.

I wonder if anyone has lobbied the Obama Justice Dept to require FBI/DEA/etc. to start recording all custodial interrogations — if the feds started doing it, I expect many state and local police would follow along.

…empirical studies over the last several decades on the social psychology of compliance, conformity, social influence, and politeness have all converged on a single conclusion: the extent to which people feel free to refuse to comply is extremely limited under situationally-induced pressures.

…

Even worse, the existing empirical evidence also suggests that observers outside of the situation systematically overestimate the extent to which citizens in police encounters feel free to refuse. Members of the Court are themselves such outside observers, and this partly explains why the Court repeatedly has held that police-citizen encounters are consensual and that consent to search was freely given.

Nadler is discussing court decisions about consent searches, not jury decisions about confessions, but I imagine that the same effect is present.

I still don’t think your question is a particularly good one. I don’t think it is effective in “harvesting an existing anchor point”. As I said, the question is confusing and contains too much indirection. If put on the spot I could easily find myself answering it “I don’t know really” even though I am very skeptical of confessions. If I had got my mind in gear and had been thinking a while about the question I would easily find the answers: “Because they were covering for a loved one, or another gang member or because the confession was coerced”.

I think you question will exclude people who are skeptical about confessions. It’s not, as you say, “the ideal voir dire question”. Your question needs refinement.

Psychologically, non-parallel experiences are NOT predictive.

My juror question, essentially, why do you think an innocent person would confess to something they did not do, isn’t IN ANY WAY about empathy. It’s about harvesting a pre-existing anchor point.

As to Gideon’s interesting idea of “planting seeds” — doesn’t actually work. Yes, we love telling them about innocent people convicted, but it’s what jurors already embrace, believe, experience that predict how they’ll skew the evidence and arguments in THIS trial.

Find out where they stand now.

“Have you ever taken the blame for something you have not done?” or

“Would you ever take the blame for something you have not done?” or

“Has anyone ever taken the blame for something you have done?” or

“Have you ever admitted to doing something wrong, just to avoid an argument, or so you could go and do something else?”

I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the US jury selection process (I’ve done jury service in the UK, but we don’t have voir dire jury selection here), but, if possible, the questions could be put into context by suggestions about taking blame to protect a loved one or even something like agreeing with the boss that a mistake had been made so that you could go home on time on a Friday, rather than have a long drawn out discussion with said boss. Marital and filial arguments are also rich sources of why someone might take blame when they had done nothing wrong.

Putting someone in a situation is much more effective than asking that person to empathize with someone in such a position.

I think it starts early at the pre-trial stage: we have to be able to identify cases of “real” false confessions by noticing the signs, then we have to start preparing for it. Consulting with an expert is one way.

But assuming that it goes to trial and we have the expert to testify, how do we do the ultimate: convince the jury that they should listen to the expert and conclude that the confession is false and disregard it entirely?

I don’t think this is something that can be disposed of with a few cursory questions. We need to develop an entire area of questioning that seeks to elicit biases people have against the concept of false confessions and also plant the seeds that they do happen in their minds.

To that extent, I think the recent publicity of DNA exonerations is additionally helpful: they show the jury pool that a) people are wrongfully accused and b) that they falsely confess.

I look forward to reading your additional thoughts on the matter.