TDCAA has received a question from a prosecutor asking whether anyone has run into a "confessions" expert.
The judge in the particular case has appointed an expert for the defense, but has not revealed to the prosecution who this expert is. The investigator who obtained the confession in the case has been subpoenaed. This prosecutor has a hunch that the expert might be testifying regarding the manner in which confessions are obtained generally, particular susceptibility of certain persons to giving false confessions, and so on.
Anyone have any information at all about these kinds of experts? If so, any ideas on how to prepare for examination?
On page 33 of the Predicate Manual, there is a discussion of The Anti-Expert Predicate, suggesting questions that can be used to keep a creative expert away from the jury. Among the examples of experts that have been rejected is the False Confession Expert. It cites a case from the Tyler Court of Appeals. The "expert" was a psychiatrist.
Has the prosecutor filed a motion under CCP 39.14 requesting disclosure of the expert? (Side note: one of the most important things I gained from the Adv. Crim. Law seminar this year is that you must get a ruling on those motions. A no-brainer, I know....but I had motions filed in several cases that had not been ruled on.)
Posts: 34 | Location: 112th Judicial District | Registered: March 29, 2001
I was involved in case in 2000 where the defense was trying to claim the defendant gave a "false" confession. The defense expert was Dr. Richard Leo from California. He was a student of another false confession "expert"--Dr. Richard Ofshe--also of California. As has been suggested, the first thing is to determine "who" the so-called expert is. I have quite a bit of material on this subject. If you want to pass on my e-mail and phone # to the prosecutor, I'll be happy to help if I can. As a sidenote, Dr. Leo came across very badly and the jury completely disregarded what he had to say.
In Travis County, today, a jury found another defendant guilty of the yogurt shop murders. The defense spent a lot of time trying to convince the jury through confession experts that the police implanted all the details in the mind of the defendant. For details, go to: http://www.austin360.com/aas/metro/yogurt/0922verdict.html
Right, the defendant was confused about whether he really was the person who killed four girls and set their store on fire. The expert witnesses seem to run their course.
