The use of lies, tricks, or deception is a legitimate tactic
in questioning defendants. A police officer that inflates the strength of the
evidence against a defendant does not significantly hinder the defendant's free
choice and will to confess. The courts will take into consideration the totality
of circumstances to determine the voluntariness of the confession. The officer
must avoid tricking the suspect into waiving his Miranda rights. This will get
any statements excluded. The officer must also avoid lies that by there nature
coerce the defendant into confessing. Example: Lying to a defendant by telling
her that she will lose her welfare benefits and custody of her children if she
did not confess.
Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 US 528 (1963)
Wilson v. U S, 162 U.S. 613 (1896)-"...the true test of admissibility is that the confession is made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort."
Sorrells v. US, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)-Entrapment is, “When the criminal design originates, not with the accused, but is conceived in the mind of the government officers, and the accused is by persuasion, deceitful representation, or inducement lured into the commission of a criminal act, the government is estopped by sound public policy from prosecution therefor.”
Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156 (1953)-"The limits in any case depend upon a weighing of the circumstances of pressure against the power of resistance of the person confessing. What would [352 U.S. 191, 198] be overpowering to the weak of will or mind might be utterly ineffective against an experienced criminal."
Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 US 528 (1963)-Lynumn was arrested for selling marijuana. The police coerced her into confessing. The police told her that if she did not cooperate, she would lose her state financial aid and custody of her children. Her confession was excluded.
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969)-The defendant was questioned by police. During the questioning, the officer falsely told the defendant that his associate had already confessed. The defendant then made a confession. The court stated, "...The questioning was of short duration, and petitioner was a mature individual of normal intelligence. The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that Rawls [a co-defendant] had made is, while relevant, insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible." These cases must be decided by viewing the "totality of the circumstances."
Florida v. Cayward, 552 So.2d. 971 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1989)(No Link)-False verbal statements to a defendant are one thing, but to create false tangible or documentary evidence is another. The fabrication of scientific documents establishing that semen stains found on the victim belonged to the defendant in order to induce a confession overstepped the bounds of fundamental fairness. The confession was excluded. It is beyond acceptable limits to manufacture evidence in order to elicit a confession.