Promise-Induced False Confessions: Lessons from Promises in Another Context

People are generally skeptical that someone would falsely confess to a crime he or she did not commit. Nonetheless, a myriad of convicts exonerated by DNA and the rapidly emerging scientific literature on the subject calls into question this long-standing belief. Scholars in the field now recognize that personal and situational risk factors, including promises of leniency, heighten the risk of a false confession. Promises of leniency have been shown to be particularly coercive in interrogations and to produce unusually persuasive testimony in the courtroom. Due to a failure to recognize the power behind these promises, our justice system does not adequately safeguard criminal defendants who give promise-induced confessions. As such, federal appellate courts are in disarray over when a promise of leniency renders a confession inadmissible at trial. On the other hand, the power behind promises in the plea-bargaining context is better recognized by scholars and laypeople alike and our justice system consequently provides much greater safeguards to criminal defendants who plead guilty in response to a promise. This Note argues that jury instructions that help the jury better detect, understand, and weigh confession testimony can close the unwarranted gap between procedural safeguards governing promise-induced admissions of guilt during plea discussions and interrogations. This Note also proposes a model instruction, which conveys the relevant scientific and legal principles in a way that will impact jurors’ verdicts in false confession cases

\u3cem\u3eMayhew v. Town of Smyrna\u3c/em\u3e: The Sixth Circuit Frustrates Public Employees\u27 Right to a Jury Trial

On May 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Mayhew v. Town of Smyrna, held that the protected status of a public employee’s speech in a First Amendment retaliation claim remains one of law, rather than one of mixed law and fact. In so doing, the Sixth Circuit disallowed jury determinations on the fact-intensive inquiry into the protected status of the employee’s speech. This Comment argues that despite having the invaluable opportunity—as a historically conservative court—to defend the voices of public employees, the Sixth Circuit continued its obliteration of public employees’ right to a jury trial. This Comment further argues that the Sixth Circuit’s decision could leave much of private sector misconduct unreported

Localization of Preformed, Circulating Immune Complexes in Murine Skin

The cutaneous localization of intravenously injected preformed immune complexes was examined in C57B1/6J mice and the importance of complex size and antibody charge was assessed for deposition and persistence in cutaneous structures.After a single intravenous bolus, large-latticed complexes deposited transiently in an interstitial extravasated pattern, and persisted longer in a vascular pattern. Small-latticed complexes, prepared at 50 times antigen excess, did not deposit. When large-latticed complexes were prepared with reduced and alkylated antibodies, their vascular deposition was similar, but they did not localize in the interstitium due to decreased extravasation. Large-latticed complexes prepared with cationized antibodies deposited in a vascular and interstitial pattern as well as at the dermal-epidermal junction. Complexes prepared with anionized antibodies deposited comparable to unaltered complexes.Cutaneous deposition of circulating immune complexes in mice requires a large lattice. Circulating immune complexes formed with cationic antibodies deposit at the dermal-epidermal junction