1

CHAPTER 2
2.0 concept of confession
The concept of confession is deeply rooted in various cultures and religions around the world. At
its core, confession involves the acknowledgment and admission of one's wrongdoing, often to a
person of authority or to a higher power. This act is typically accompanied by feelings of
remorse, guilt, and a desire for redemption or absolution.

In religious contexts, confession plays a significant role in the process of repentance and seeking
forgiveness from a deity. In Christianity, for example, confession is a sacrament where believers
confess their sins to a priest, who acts as a representative of God, and receive absolution in
return. The act of confession is seen as a way to cleanse the soul and restore one's relationship
with God.

Beyond religious practices, confession also has psychological and social implications.
Psychologically, confession can serve as a form of catharsis, allowing individuals to release
pent-up emotions and guilt. By confessing their wrongdoings, individuals may experience a
sense of relief and emotional healing.

Socially, confession can be a means of accountability and reconciliation. In interpersonal

relationships, admitting one's mistakes and apologizing can help repair trust and strengthen
bonds. In legal contexts, confession can be used as evidence or a basis for punishment,
highlighting its role in systems of justice and accountability.

However, the act of confession is not without its complexities and controversies. Critics argue
that confession can be coercive, especially in religious settings where individuals may feel
pressured to confess their sins out of fear of punishment or societal judgment. Additionally, the
concept of forgiveness and absolution can raise questions about justice and accountability,
particularly when serious harm has been inflicted.

Overall, the concept of confession embodies themes of morality, spirituality, psychology, and
social dynamics. It serves as a multifaceted phenomenon with implications that extend across
various aspects of human experience and society.
2

Evidence is anything that helps persuade the mind to affirm or negate the existence of some other
fact in issue.42 A fact in issue is a fact that the prosecution and defence do not agree occurred or
existed.43 For example, in a murder trial, the prosecution may allege that the accused was seen
leaving the scene of the crime. However, the defence may claim that the accused was never
there. Here, the fact in issue is whether the accused was at the location of the crime at the time
the crime was committed. As such, both parties will lead evidence to prove their version of
events.

Evidence is anything that helps persuade the mind to affirm or negate the existence of some other
fact in issue.42 A fact in issue is a fact that the prosecution and defence do not agree occurred or
existed.43 For example, in a murder trial, the prosecution may allege that the accused was seen
leaving the scene of the crime. However, the defence may claim that the accused was never
there. Here, the fact in issue is whether the accused was at the location of the crime at the time
the crime was committed. As such, both parties will lead evidence to prove their version of
events.

2Evidence is anything that helps persuade the mind to affirm or negate the existence of some
other fact in issue.42 A fact in issue is a fact that the prosecution and defence do not agree
occurred or existed.43 For example, in a murder trial, the prosecution may allege that the
accused was seen leaving the scene of the crime. However, the defence may claim that the
accused was never there. Here, the fact in issue is whether the accused was at the location of the
crime at the time the crime was committed. As such, both parties will lead evidence to prove
their version of events.

Section 25 of the Kenyan Evidence Act defines confessions as words or conducts, or a

combination of words and conducts, from which whether taken alone or in conjunction with
other facts proved, an inference may reasonably be drawn that the person making it has
committed an offence.

A confession can only be in respect of a matter within the knowledge of the person confessing. A
confession is worthless if it relates to matters outside of that knowledge or experience. He cannot
confess to the acts of other persons which he has not seen and of which he can only have
knowledge by hearsay. In R v Hulbert8 it was held that the accused could confess, on a charge of
handling stolen goods, that she received the goods, knowing or believing them to be stolen, but
3

she could not confess that they were stolen, since this was something that she had merely been
told. In Comptroller of Customs v Western Lectric Co. Ltd9 it was held that the accused could
not confess as to the countries of origin of various goods because the admission was made upon
reading the marks and labels on those goods and was of no more evidential value than those
marks and labels themselves.10 The confession must be made by the accused himself and not by
any other person

A confessional statement must identify the perpetrator of the offence. In the case of a bride
burning a confession was made before the village panchayat by a large number of peoples of
whom the accused was only one. Who among them had burned the bride was not mentioned.
Such confession was held to be not capable of being used against any person. Specifically it was
not a confession in any sense of the word.

Moreover, the confession evidence shall be obtained through the process of formal interrogation.
The police may obtain incriminating admissions other1than through a

formal interview for instance, through unlawful installation of a court listening device or through
unauthorized surveillance methods

Moreover, the status of the suspect during investigation should be taken in to consider. For
instance, if the suspect was intoxicated, the police shall wait him until he gets his consciousness.
Because it is difficult to conclude that the intoxicated suspect can give his confession freely and
intelligently. Thus, the confession given to the police where the suspect was in state of
intoxication shall not be admissiable. Do you agree?

general2 concept of evidence law Before dealing with “evidence law”, it is important to discuss
about the concept of “evidence” in general since evidence and law of evidence are two different
things. The word “evidence” is originated from a Latin term “evidential” which means to show
clearly, to make clear to the sight to discover clearly certain, to ascertain or to prove. Thus,
evidence is something, which serves to prove or disprove the existence or non- existence of an
alleged fact. The party who alleges the existence of a certain fact has to prove its existence and
the party, who denies it, has to disprove its existence or prove its non-existence.

1
Nicola Monaghan, “Law of Evidence,” Law of Evidence, 2015, 1–494,
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139097178.
2
Monaghan, 2.
4

However, However, all facts traditionally considered, as evidence may not be evidence in the
eyes of evidence law. Rather, evidence is something presented before the court for the purpose of
proving or disproving an issue under question. In other words, evidence is the means of
satisfying the court of the truth or untruth of disputed fact between the parties in their pleadings.

Draft Evidence Rules (DER) defines evidence, as “ a means whereby any alleged matter of fact,
the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is proved and includes statements by accused
persons, admission, Judicial notice, presumptions of law, and observation by the court in its
Judicial capacity”. This definition may be more than what you think to be evidence. However,
even though the kinds of evidences enumerated under Rule 3 of DER are not exhaustive, it failed
to cite “documentary evidence” which is considered as one of reliable evidences, especially in
civil cases, as one types of evidence. This seems the result of poor drafts' man ship.

In Somali before the independence and unification of the country, they were two different code
of criminal procedure in force in the two parts. In the south (Trust Territory of <<Somalia>>
under the Italia Administration) it was the It was Italian criminal procedure code. The north
(British Somaliland protectorate) it was the criminal procedure ordinate (cap. 6 of volume 1 of
laws of Somaliland 1950) which itself was based on the Indian code of criminal procedure.

The act of Union (Law No. 5 of 31 st January, 1961 authorized the constitution of the existing
Laws and regulations in the respective regions until they were replaced by uniform law
application in the entire territory of the Republic. In Somalia criminal procedure code (legislative
Degree No 1 1st June , 1963 at subsequently amended.

For ease of reference, we have reproduced each articles of the code as amended up-to-date
indicating The reference to amended law. The (note)follows those articles of the code which, in
our opinion, need Some explanation or elucidation There are some articles which are indicating
evidence law are in page 161 in Book three. chapter oneRelevancy of fact in general

Articles are 135(facts in issue and relevant facts), 136 (relevancy of facts forming part of the
same event) Other articles are 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142,143, 144, 145, and 146.

Also there are some other articles who are specially talking about admission and confession such
as Section 1 article 147 (definition Admissions, 148 (relevancy of admission) and section 2
article 149 definition of confession 150 (confession caused by inducement, threat or promise)
5

2.1 Introduction
This chapter covers many things like concept of confession, introduction, purpose of confession,
difference between confession and admission, false confession, psychology of confession and
last but not least conclusion. Also this chapter we deeply discuses everything related to
confession Introducing a confession can vary depending on the context and the seriousness of the
matter. You might start by expressing the need to have an honest conversation, acknowledging
the gravity of the situation, and ensuring a safe and non-judgmental space for the confession to
be made.

2.2 Purpose of confession

The concept of confession is deeply rooted in various cultures and religions around the world. At
its core, confession involves the acknowledgment and admission of one's wrongdoing, often to a
person of authority or to a higher power. This act is typically accompanied by feelings of
remorse, guilt, and a desire for redemption or absolution. In religious contexts, confession plays
a significant role in the process of repentance and seeking forgiveness from a deity. In
Christianity, for example, confession is a sacrament where believers confess their sins to a priest,
who acts as a representative of God, and receive absolution in return. The act of confession is
seen as a way to cleanse the soul and restore one's relationship with God.

Beyond religious practices, confession also has psychological and social implications.
Psychologically, confession can serve as a form of catharsis, allowing individuals to release
pent-up emotions and guilt. By confessing their wrongdoings, individuals may experience a
sense of relief and emotional healing. Socially, confession can be a means of accountability and
reconciliation. In interpersonal relationships, admitting one's mistakes and apologizing can help
repair trust and strengthen bonds. In legal contexts, confession can be used as evidence or a basis
for punishment, highlighting its role in systems of justice and accountability.

However, the act of confession is not without its complexities and controversies. Critics argue
that confession can be coercive, especially in religious settings where individuals may feel

3
Criminal procedure code of Somalia (legislative Decree No. 1 of 1st june, 1963)
6

pressured to confess their sins out of fear of punishment or societal judgment. Additionally, the
concept of forgiveness and absolution can raise questions about justice and accountability,
particularly when serious harm has been inflicted.

Overall, the concept of confession embodies themes of morality, spirituality, psychology, and
social dynamics. It serves as a multifaceted phenomenon with implications that extend across
various aspects of human experience and society.

2.4 Difference between confession and admission

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the distinction between admissions in criminal cases and
confessions by the accused is the distinction in effect between admissions of fact from which the
guilt of the accused may be inferred by the jury and the express admission of guilt itself.18 In
some cases, silence may amount to an admission, especially when both parties are speaking or
are simply on the same and even terms i.e. no one occupies a superior position in relation to the
other. A person is entitled to refrain from answering a question put to him for the purpose of
discovering whether he has committed a criminal offence. There is no obligation to comment
when informed that someone else has accused him of an offence. If it is reasonable to expect
someone to make some response to an allegation made against him, his subsequent silence can
now be used as evidence against him. In some cases, a denial, ipso facto, may not necessarily
render the statement made in his presence inadmissible as he may deny the statement in such a
manner and under such circumstances as may lead a judge or jury to disbelieve him and
constitute evidence from which an acknowledgment may be inferred by them.19 In English Law,
the term admission is usually applied to civil proceedings and to those matters of fact, in criminal
cases, which do not involve criminal intent, the term confession being generally restricted to
acknowledgments of guilt. The Nigerian Evidence Act proceeds upon the same principle.
Confessions are one species of admissions consisting of a direct acknowledgment of guilt by the
accused in a criminal case.

Only voluntary and direct acknowledgment of guilt is a confession but when a confession falls
short of direct admission of guilt it may nevertheless be used as evidence against the person who
made it or his authorised agent as an admission under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence
(Amendment) Act, 2002 (4 of 2003).20 An oral confession by an accused is an admission by an
7

accused and is a relevant fact and may be proved at his trial. Proof of such confession may be by
the evidence of the person before whom it was made.21

section 29(1) of the Nigerian Evidence Act provides that in any proceeding, a confession made
by a defendant may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in
issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.

A confession is the best evidence in criminal proceedings.22 A confession made in judicial

proceedings is of greater force or value than all other proofs. If it is direct and true and
satisfactorily proved, it should occupy the highest place of authenticity when it comes to proof
beyond reasonable doubt. That is why such a confession by itself alone is sufficient without
further corroboration to warrant a conviction. And there cannot be such a conviction unless the
trial court is satisfied that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.23 The denial or
retraction of a confession is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide what weight to be
attached to the confession.24 A confessional statement that is free, direct, positive and voluntary
is enough to ground a conviction. In addition, in this case, the appellant had expressly stated the
motive for the killing.25 A court only needs corroboration when there is any doubt as to the
voluntariness or the opportunity of making such statement.2ction 29(1) of the Nigerian Evidence
Act provides that in any proceeding, a confession made by a defendant may be given in evidence
against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded
by the court in pursuance of this section.

A confession is the best evidence in criminal proceedings.22 A confession made in judicial

proceedings is of greater force or value than all other proofs. If it is direct and true and
satisfactorily proved, it should 4occupy the highest place of authenticity when it comes to proof
beyond reasonable doubt. That is why such a confession by itself alone is sufficient without
further corroboration to warrant a conviction. And there cannot be such a conviction unless the
trial court is satisfied that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.23 The denial or
retraction of a confession is a matter to be taken into consideration to decide what weight to be
attached to the confession.24 A confessional statement that is free, direct, positive and voluntary
is enough to ground a conviction. In addition, in this case, the appellant had expressly stated the

4
O Tajudeen, “The Relevance of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings Acting Dean,” International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science 3, no. 21 (2013): 293.
8

motive for the killing.25 A court only needs corroboration when there is any doubt as to the
voluntariness or the opportunity of making such statement.

The burden of proving that a confession was voluntarily made rests on the prosecution in
criminal proceedings. The burden involves the same standard as the proof of guilt, i.e. beyond
reasonable doubt.

In the view of an author, the truth of the confession is irrelevant, so long as it proceeds
voluntarily from the maker and no law or rule laid down is breached.27 But in practice, in
Nigeria, a confession will only support a conviction without corroboration so long as the court is
satisfied of its truth.28 Where the issue is one of identity, where an accused by his confession has
identified himself, there is no need for any further identification parade.29

A confessional statement must be voluntary and consistent with other evidence in court. Where a
confession is made voluntarily, it is deemed a relevant fact and admissible against the maker
under Section 27(2) of the Evidence Act.30

Where the accused denies making the extra judicial statement, the court should look for some
independent evidence, that is to say, evidence outside the confession to make the confession
probable.31 The fact that the appellant took the earliest opportunity to deny having made the
statement may lend weight to his denial32 but it is not in itself a reason for ignoring the
statement.33 The proper time to object to it is at its point of being tendered.34 Under the Lagos
State Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2011, confessional statements are required to be
video recorded to avoid retraction by the defendant, often leading to a trial-within-a-trial which
occasions undue delays in the administration of criminal justice.35

The court can convict an accused person on his uncorroborated confessional statement when the
following cumulative conditions are satisfied:

1. There is something outside the confession which shows that it may be true

2. The statements contained therein are likely to be true.

3. The accused had the opportunity to have committed the offence 4. The facts stated by the
accused are consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and established at the
trial.36
9

Also, there are some questions a judge must ask himself on the weight to be attached to a
confessional statement:

False confession
False confessions present a puzzle: How could innocent people

convincingly confess to crimes they knew nothing about? For decades, commentators doubted
that a crime suspect would falsely confess. For example, John Henry Wilmore wrote in his 1923
evidence treatise that false confessions were "scarcely conceivable" and "of the rarest
occurrence" and that "[n]o trustworthy figures of authenticated instances exist .... ",1 That
understanding has changed dramatically in recent years, as, at the time of this writing, post
conviction DNA testing has exonerated 252 convicts, forty-two of whom falsely confessed to
rapes and murders. 2 There is a new awareness among.

scholars, legislators, courts, prosecutors, police departments, and the public that innocent people
falsely confess, often due to psychological pressure placed upon them during police
interrogations. 3 Scholars increasingly study the psychological techniques that can cause people
to falsely confess and have documented how such techniques were used in instances of known
false confessions. This Article takes a different approach by examining the substance of false
confessions, including what was said during interrogations and how confessions were litigated at
trial. Doing so sheds light on the phenomenon of confession contamination.5 Police may,
intentionally or not, prompt the suspect on how the crime happened so that the suspect can then
parrot back an accurate-sounding narrative. Scholars have noted 5that "on occasion, police are
suspected of feeding details of a crime to a compliant suspect," and have described several well-
known examples.

In April 1989, a young woman was attacked while jogging in New

York City's Central Park. The jogger entered the park near 84th Street shortly after 9:00 p.m.,
traveled north along the East Drive, and then turned onto the 102nd Street Cross drive heading
5
Brandon L Garrett et al., “THE SUBSTANCE OF FALSE CONFESSIONS - ProQuest,” n.d., 1054,
http://search.proquest.com.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/docview/224077578/fulltextPDF?accountid=16285.
10

west. At approximately 9:15 p.m., 2 she was knocked down and dragged into a ravine where she
was raped and sodomized. She was beaten so severely, particularly in the area of her left eye,
that she lost nearly eighty percent of her blood.' On the same evening, a large group of teenage
boys, with

estimates ranging as high as forty to fifty boys, entered Central Park near East 110th Street in
Harlem and began walking south along the park's East Drive. The boys subsequently
encountered Antonio Diaz, who was eating dinner and drinking beer in the park that night. Some
of the boys proceeded to beat up Diaz and dragged him into a nearby thicket of bushes.4 This
group of boys then continued heading south on East Drive, harassing several cyclists along the
way.5 Sometime thereafter, a police car passed the group, causing them to break up temporarily
before regrouping near some ball fields in the park's North Meadow. According to Jermain
Robinson, who was one of the boys in the group that night, the group then left the ball fields
went south toward 97th Street, squirmed through a hole in the fence, and hid in some bushes in
close proximity to the northern edge of the reservoir. While concealing themselves in the bushes,
the boys waited for joggers to pass.6 Sometime before 9:30 p.m., five of the boys tried to assault
David

Lewis as he jogged near the reservoir. As Lewis sped past the boys' hiding place, one of the boys
struck him on the elbow with a blunt

Jermain Robinson's testimony is crucial to understanding why the

confessions of the five who confessed are false. Robinson, in exchange for a plea deal allowing
him to admit to a single count of robbery, agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors. He became
their tour guide of the mayhem which took place in the park on the night of the attack on the
jogger, walking with them along the path that the boys took through the park and describing in
detail the assaults even though he had everything to gain from implicating the others in the rape,
Robinson consistently denied knowing anything about a rape. The route he claimed the boys had
taken took the boys south through the park towards the reservoir, not north towards the secluded
area where the joggerJermain Robinson's testimony is crucial to understanding why the

confessions of the five who confessed are false. Robinson, in exchange for a plea deal allowing
him to admit to a single count of robbery, agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors. He became
11

their tour guide of the mayhem which took place in the park on the night of the attack on the
jogger, walking with them along the path that the boys took through the park and describing in
detail the assaults even though he had everything to gain from implicating the others in the rape,
Robinson consistently denied knowing anything about a rape. The route he claimed the boys had
taken took the boys south through the park towards the reservoir, not north towards the secluded
area where the jogger was raped.
6

object. A second jogger, David Good, claimed that he was chased by a group of ten African-
American youths who threw stones at him as he ran past them. Robert Garner, a third jogger, was
chased and caught by fifteen to twenty youths on the reservoir's northern edge. As they assaulted
Garner, the mob made demands for his money. When Garner said that he had none, they released
him. Finally, a fourth jogger, John Laughlin, a six-foot-four-inch ex-Marine, seeing that Garner
was in trouble, approached the group. Laughlin was unable to render assistance, however, due to
a blow to the head with a blunt object, later thought to be a solid metal pipe, which left him
temporarily unconscious.7 Two plain-clothes officers, Eric Reynolds and Robert Powers,

responding to complaints about the mayhem, spotted fifteen to twenty boys on Central Park West
near 100th Street at around 10:15 p.m.' As their squad car approached the group, all but two of
the boys scattered. Steven Lopez, age fifteen, and Raymond Santana, age fourteen, remained at
the scene and answered Officer Reynolds's questions, insisting that they were not part of the
larger group.9 Reynolds and a third officer, Ivelisse Flores, ran after the boys who had fled,
eventually catching Kevin Richards and Clarence Thomas, both of whom were fourteen years
old at the time.1" When Richardson and Thomas both identified Lopez and Santana as being part
of their group, all four boys were arrested." A fifth boy, Lamont McCall, age thirteen, was also
among the first arrestees.Shortly before 1:00 a.m., two men, Benicio Moore and Carlos

Colon discovered the body of the female jogger. The men were walking home when, after
hearing moaning sounds in the darkness, they went to investigate the source of the noise. 3 Prior
to this discovery, the police officers had been focusing only on the Diaz assault, the attempted
assaults on the cyclists, and the attacks on the joggers. Because the jogger's body was discovered

6
Steven A Drizin and Richard A Leo, “The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World Recommended
Citation,” North Caroline Law Review 82, no. 891 (2004): 895, http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol82/iss3/3.
12

near the location where Diaz and the cyclists had been accosted, however, the police suspected
that the boys involved in those crimes were also responsible 7. Shortly before 1:00 a.m., two
men, Benicio Moore and Carlos

Colon discovered the body of the female jogger. The men were walking home when, after
hearing moaning sounds in the darkness, they went to investigate the source of the noise. 3 Prior
to this discovery, the police officers had been focusing only on the Diaz assault, the attempted
assaults on the cyclists, and the attacks on the joggers. Because the jogger's body was discovered
near the location where Diaz and the cyclists had been accosted, however, the police suspected
that the boys involved in those crimes were also responsible

for raping and beating the female jogger. 4 Throughout the night and the next day, Manhattan
North Homicide detectives interrogated the boys already in custody and apprehended others who
had been named as accomplices. Antron McRay, age fifteen, was taken into custody at 11:00
a.m., and Yosef Salaam, age fifteen, and Karley Wise, age sixteen, were both brought in at 10:00
p.m. on the next day."5 Two hours before the arrest of Salaam and Wise, prosecutors Elizabeth
Lederer and Linda Feinstein arrived at the station to assist the detectives in the interrogations.
Lederer and Feinstein worked in the Sex Crimes Unit of the District Attorney's Office, and their
involvement at this early stage of the investigation indicated that the D.A.'s office also believed
the boys to be responsible for the sexual assault. Their arrival also coincided with the next phase
of the investigation: videotaping the boys' confessions to the rape of the Central Park Jogger.6
Ultimately, Ultimately, prosecutors were able to obtain five confessions to

the rape of the Central Park Jogger; four of these confessions were captured on videotape and the
fifth was an alleged "oral confession." A sixth defendant, Steve Lopez, who had been identified
as a ringleader by all of the other boys, refused to admit to any participation in the rape.
Although the confessions were videotaped and most of the boys confessed in the presence of
their parents, 7 the earlier interrogation sessions had not been taped. Precisely what happened
during the hours of police

interrogations was a matter of great dispute both in pre-trial motions and at trial.

The boys and their parents claimed that the interrogations were highly coercive, alleging that
officers slapped the Ultimately, prosecutors were able to obtain five confessions to
13

the rape of the Central Park Jogger; four of these confessions were captured on videotape and the
fifth was an alleged "oral confession." A sixth defendant, Steve Lopez, who had been identified
as a ringleader by all of the other boys, refused to admit to any participation in the rape.
Although the confessions were videotaped and most of the boys confessed in the presence of
their parents, 7 the earlier interrogation sessions had not been taped. Precisely what happened
during the hours of police interrogations was a matter of great dispute both in pre-trial motions
and at trial.

The boys and their parents claimed that the interrogations were highly coercive, alleging that
officers slapped the boys,'18 yelled and cursed at them, and called them liars. Several boys
claimed that they were told that they were being questioned as mere "witnesses" and that they
would be released from custody if they only

confessed. 9 The police officers denied that they used coercive tactics, although one detective did
admit that he lied to Yosef Salaam when he told Salaam that his fingerprints would be found on
the victim's jogging shorts."z After hearing both accounts of what transpired during hearings for
the defendants' pre-trial motions to suppress their confessions, Judge Thomas Gilligan found that
the police detectives were more credible than the defense witnesses and ruled that the defendants'
statements were admissible in their trials. Five of the Central Park defendants took their cases to
trial. The first trial's defendants were Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salaam, and Antron McCray; the
second involved Kharey Wise and Kevin Richardson. All five defendants were convicted of
participating in the rape of the jogger and the assaults on several of the cyclists and the other
joggers. Jurors found Kharey Wise, who gave two conflicting taped confessions, not guilty of the
rape but guilty of a lesser charge of sex abuse for "playing with the jogger's legs. Only

Kevin Richardson, who had hair consistent with the jogger's on his clothing and who was named
as one of the boys who beat the jogger with a rock, was found guilty of attempted murder.23 All
the boys who went to trial were sentenced to between five and fifteen years in prison.24 Steve
Lopez was never brought to trial on the rape but pled guilty to one of the assaults near the
reservoir.

18. of the Central Park defendants took their cases to trial. The7

7
8
14

first trial's defendants were Raymond Santana, Yusuf Salaam, and Antron McCray; the second
involved Kharey Wise and Kevin Richardson. All five defendants were convicted of
participating in the rape of the jogger and the assaults on several of the cyclists and the other
joggers.

Jurors found Kharey Wise, who gave two

conflicting taped confessions, not guilty of the rape but guilty of a lesser charge of sex abuse for
"playing with the jogger's legs.

Only Kevin Richardson, who had hair consistent with the jogger's on his clothing and who was
named as one of the boys who beat the jogger with a rock, was found guilty of attempted
murder.23 All the boys who went to trial were sentenced to between five and fifteen years in
prison.24 Steve Lopez was never brought to trial on the rape but pled guilty to one of the assaults
near the reservoir. In January 2002, a convict named Matias Reyes contacted

authorities and informed them that he, acting alone, had raped the Central Park Jogger. Reyes
was one of New York City's most notorious serial rapists. Between June 1989 and his
apprehension in August of that year, Reyes terrorized the Upper East Side, raping four women,
one of whom, a pregnant woman, he killed after raping her in front of her children.26 More
significantly, when Reyes's DNA was compared to that recovered from the Central Park Jogger
crime scene, there was a match: semen stains on the jogger's sock were proven to have come
from Reyes. This newly discovered evidence prompted the Manhattan District Attorney's Office
to launch a reinvestigation of the case. InIn January 2002, a convict named Matias Reyes
contacted

authorities and informed them that he, acting alone, had raped the Central Park Jogger. Reyes
was one of New York City's most notorious serial rapists. Between June 1989 and his
apprehension in August of that year, Reyes terrorized the Upper East Side, raping four women,
one of whom, a pregnant woman, he killed after raping her in front of her children.26 More
significantly, when Reyes's DNA was compared to that recovered from the Central Park Jogger
crime scene, there was a match: semen stains on the jogger's sock were proven to have come
from Reyes. This newly discovered evidence prompted the Manhattan District Attorney's Office
to launch a reinvestigation of the case. In the Fall of 2002, attorneys retained by three of the boys
15

learned that DNA testing tended to exonerate their clients of the rape and filed a motion to vacate
the convictions.27 Meanwhile, Reyes gave a nationally televised interview in which he provided
a detailed description of the assault and rape of the jogger, going so far as to draw a map of the
area in which the attack took place.28 Reyes also claimed in the interview that he did not know
any of the boys who were convicted of the rape.29 After an exhaustive eleven-month
investigation, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office was unable to establish any link between
Reyes and any of the five defendants.30 Additional new evidence emerged, much of which
tended to undermine the validity of the boys' convictions. At both trials, theIn the Fall of 2002,
attorneys retained by three of the boys

learned that DNA testing tended to exonerate their clients of the rape and filed a motion to vacate
the convictions.27 Meanwhile, Reyes gave a nationally televised interview in which he provided
a detailed description of the assault and rape of the jogger, going so far as to draw a map of the
area in which the attack took place.28 Reyes also claimed in the interview that he did not know
any of the boys who were convicted of the rape.29 After an exhaustive eleven-month
investigation, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office was unable to establish any link between
Reyes and any of the five defendants.30 Additional new evidence emerged, much of which
tended to undermine the validity of the boys' convictions. At both trials, the prosecutors had
stated that "hair consistent with the jogger's" was found on Kevin Richardson's clothing.
Mitochondrial DNA testing-a technique not scientifically possible at the time of the trials-later
demonstrated that the hairs were probably not the jogger's. Similarly, hair and blood recovered
from a rock found near the crime scene which prosecutors suggested was the murder weapon
was found not to have been the jogger's.33 In light of this exculpatory evidence, the District
Attorney's Office ultimately decided to join the motion to vacate the boys' convictions.34 The
District Attorney's fifty-eight page memorandum in support of the defense motion outlines why
prosecutors chose to believe Reyes's confession that he acted alone and why they gave it greater
weight than the boys' videotaped confessions.35 On December 19, 2002, Judge Charles 8 Tejada
of the New York Supreme Court (a trial court) granted the motion and vacated all of the
convictions of the original Central Park Jogger defendants.

8
S. kasin Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. Volume 8 issue 6. 2017
16

District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, and attorneys in his office, deserve credit for
reinvestigating the jogger case when compelling evidence of the boys' innocence first came to
light. Rather than re-investigate such claims, police and prosecutors often vigorously defend the
conviction, using the fact that a jury or judge must have found the confessions to be reliable in
order to convict as justification for refusing to reopen the case.37 Indeed, District Attorney
Morgenthau's decision to support the defense motion to vacate the convictions was sharply
criticized by former prosecutors from his office, police officers involved in the original
investigation, and others connected to the case.38 In fact, the New York City Police. Department
conducted its own investigation and released its own report.39 Although ultimately concurring
with the D.A.'s decision to join in the motion to vacate, the NYPD report took issue with many
of the D.A.'s factual findings, attacked the credibility of Matias Reyes's statements, and advanced
several theories in which both Reyes and the original defendants could have participated in the
assaults." The discovery that Matias Reyes's DNA matched the DNA taken from a sock found at
the Central Park crime scene triggered the re-investigation of the Central Park jogger case.41
This Article will examine how DNA testing has changed our understanding of wrongful
prosecution and conviction in America, focusing specifically on the phenomena of interrogation-
induced false confession. This Article will document and analyze more than 125 false
confessions, the largest such cohort ever assembled. Unlike previous studies of false confessions,
however, the confessions considered in this Article have been proven to be false. The Central
Park Jogger case is representative of many of the trends we have observed in the cohort,
including issues of youth, mental disability, multiple false confessions in a single case, and the
utility of DNA testing in overcoming resistance to the notion of false confession. In a
development that can be traced directly to the increased use

of DNA testing, most of the confessions in the cohort have been proven false in the past five
years.42 Primarily as a result of DNA testing, approximately two-thirds of the exonerations have
occurred pre-trial, rather than post-conviction.9 In this way, DNA testing has helped to minimize
the consequences of false confessions. This Article proceeds as follows:

Part I discusses, from ahistorical perspective, the study of wrongful convictions and the
prominent role that false confessions have played in such studies. Part I also discusses the

9
Drizin and Leo, “The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World Recommended Citation,” 895.
17

development of DNA testing and its role in renewing interest in the study of wrongful
convictions. The proven false confessions that comprise the original data set

analyzed in this Article are presented below in Table 2. This data set consists of 125 proven false
confessions. The 125 false confessions are more than three times the number of proven, and
more than twice the number of total (whether proven, highly probable or probable) false
confessions that have been presented or analyzed in any previous American study.2" 8 The
proven false confessions in this Article occurred between the years of 1971 and 2002, though
31% of them occurred in the last five years (1998-2003) and 55% occurred in the last ten years
(1993-2003). The data on false confessions presented in this study (as well as in the 1998 study
by Leo and the false confessions).

appear to suggest either that the number of interrogation-induced false confessions have risen in
recent years or that they are now being discovered more frequently. That researchers are not
presently able to estimate the frequency of interrogation-induced false confession, however, does
not make the academic study of police interrogation and false confession any less scientific or
important.10

As illustrated by numerous cases in recent years, DNA exonerations of innocent individuals have
cast a spotlight on the counterintuitive problem of false confessions. Studying the underlying
psychology scientists have found that (1) innocent people are often targeted for interrogation
because police make erroneous but confident judgments of deception; (2) certain

interrogation techniques—namely, lengthy sessions, presentations of false evidence, and

minimization themes that imply leniency—increase the risk that innocent people will confess; 11

2.6 Psychology of confession

throughout human history, in criminal justice and other settings, confession evidence has proved
tobe common, potent, and persuasive as a matter of common sense. Referring to the place of
confessions in the U.S. courts, one legal scholar stated, many years ago that ‘the introduction of a
confession makes the other aspects of a trial in court superflu- ous’ (Ref 1, p. 316).

Persuasive as it may be, confession evidence is

10

11
Saul M. Kassin, “False Confessions,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 8, no. 6 (2017): 1,
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1439.
18

fallible. Over the course of recent history, a number of cases have been documented involving
people wrongfully convicted on the basis of admissions and confessions to crimes they did not
commit. Within the data base of the Innocence Project—an organization founded in 1992 by
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld for the purpose of testing post-conviction claims of innocence
through the use of DNA evidence—false confessions were a contributing factor in over 25% of
case in the United States, all involving rapes and murders—the crimes for which DNA evidence
typi- cally is found (http://www.innocenceproject.org/). In the broader population of wrongful
convictions iden- tified by the National Registry of Exonerations, which includes non-DNA
cases and a more diverse sample of crimes, false confessions have contributed to 13% of
wrongful convictions. In both samples, the percent- age of false confessions is highest,
ironically, in homicides—where the sentencing consequences are the most severe
(http://www.law.umich.edu/special/ exoneration/Pages/about.aspx). It is not possible to estimate
or extrapolate a

prevalence rate from these numbers. As the known instances do not include false confessors not
prose- cuted because their innocence was established before trial or those who pled guilty to
lesser crimes, thereby preempting critical scrutiny of their cases, it is clear that DNA. exonerated
false confessors represent a mere partial sample of the total population of such cases. Also not
represented are statements made during interrogations outside the criminal .12

2.7 conclusion
Confession is a deeply ingrained concept in many cultures and religions, serving as a means of
acknowledging wrongdoing, seeking forgiveness, and experiencing spiritual or emotional relief.
The act of confession can be a cathartic experience, allowing individuals to unburden themselves
of guilt and shame. However, its significance extends beyond the individual, often playing a role
in social cohesion and moral accountability within communities.

At its core, confession acknowledges the fallibility of human nature and the importance of
accountability. By admitting to one's mistakes or transgressions, individuals demonstrate
humility and a willingness to confront their flaws. This process fosters personal growth and
encourages self-reflection, ultimately leading to greater self-awareness and moral development.

12
Kassin, 1.
19

Moreover, confession can strengthen social bonds by promoting honesty and trust within
relationships, as well as fostering empathy and understanding among community members.

In conclusion, the concept of confession embodies themes of redemption, reconciliation, and

personal responsibility. Whether practiced within the context of religion, therapy, or personal
relationships, confession serves as a powerful tool for individuals to confront their shortcomings,
seek forgiveness, and strive for self-improvement. By embracing vulnerability and
accountability, individuals not only heal themselves but also contribute to the well-being of their
communities, fostering a culture of honesty, empathy, and moral integrity.

Drizin, Steven A, and Richard A Leo. “The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA
World

bibliography

Recommended Citation.” North Caroline Law Review 82, no. 891 (2004): 3–4.
http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol82/iss3/3.

Garrett, Brandon L, I Kerry Abrams, Rachel Barkow, Tony Barkow, Sara Sun Beale, Stephanos
Bibas, Darryl Brown, et al. “THE SUBSTANCE OF FALSE CONFESSIONS - ProQuest,”
n.d. http://search.proquest.com.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/docview/224077578/fulltextPDF?
accountid=16285.

Kassin, Saul M. “False Confessions.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 8, no.
6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1439.

Monaghan, Nicola. “Law of Evidence.” Law of Evidence, 2015, 1–494.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139097178.

Tajudeen, O. “The Relevance of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings Acting Dean.”

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3, no. 21 (2013): 291–300.