I have an Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child case. The defendant gave a confession after waiving Miranda, on video. But he confessed to doing more than the child's stated in the outcry interview. He said he gave the child oral sex. The child admits only to indecency by touching and is adanmant that no oral sex occurred.

Anyway, the guy has plead to indecency with a child, but we are going to introduce the video confession in punishment. Punishment is to the court, a dangerous choice considering the judge has a history of punishing these cases harshly (as he should).

MY QUESTION: The defense attorney has an expert on confessions, and has also subpoenead our officers to bring all books related to interrogation techniques. He is attempting to show that his client was coerced into saying he gave the child oral sex, while admitting to conduct consistent with indecency. The police do not want to disclose their techniques in a trial. Anyone know any way to keep it out, on anything other than an objection for relevance?

This is something we can expect to see more of in the future. Professor Allison at UT has been urging attacks on police techniques. In the second edition of Confessions (going to the printers this week) I have devoted a chapter to police techniques and included some (what I hope are) useful references. Email me at jstride@co.collin.tx.us and I will send a copy of just this chapter.

Attacking the qualifications and opinions of their expert is probably your best hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael W. Mitchell:

He is attempting to show that his client was coerced into saying he gave the child oral sex, while admitting to conduct consistent with indecency.

---

I may have missed something, but ... isn't this essentially a claim of innocence? One that is inadmissible at punishment? If the video's contents accurately reflect the language to which the defendant plead guilty, he cannot claim otherwise at punishment.

In the video he admits to giving the child oral sex. In the plea he admitted to touching the child on the breast and penis. So, the defense attorney is afraid the judge will believe his client committed the greater offense, even though he is pleaing the lesser charge. Not that it will matter much to this judge. They are trying to say he is guilty of the lesser charge he plead guilty to, and not to the one he confessed to.