Today’s over-the-top headline in the local paper, “Police: Teen Confessed to Killing Davis Couple,” leaves us with a sinking feeling in the pit of our stomachs. A few weeks ago, acting on principle, we opposed the court closing the preliminary hearing to the public.
We believe that we did the right thing, but we understand the concerns of the defense. Everything has a context, and in this case, we literally heard one side of the story without even the usual cross-examination.
It is highly unusual for the defense to put on their own witnesses during a preliminary hearing. There are good reasons for that. The standard of proof needed to hold someone to charges is probable cause. The judge listens to all evidence in the best possible light for the prosecution – basically, if the police are able to articulate the elements of a criminal charge, the judge will allow the jury to assess whether the facts in this case support that charge.
Here, however, we go even further. Defense Attorney Ron Johnson, of the Public Defender’s office, in this case chose to hold all of his cards right next to his vest and he did not even cross-examine the witnesses.
What emerged on Friday was the testimony of Ariel Pineda, who testified that he had performed the interrogation of Daniel Marsh – who was 15 at the time of the crimes and had just turned 16 when questioned by Detective Pineda.
He testified that it was about a four-hour interrogation – it was apparently performed with an FBI agent present, but without the presence of an attorney.
Mr. Marsh would originally state that he had nothing to do with and no knowledge of the murders. While Detective Pineda stated that he “never threatened or promised him anything,” he did tell him that there were two people who said Mr. Marsh did it.
Is that true or did Detective Pineda give Mr. Marsh false information in an effort to coerce him to confess? At this point it is a big question mark whether a police detective lied to a kid to get him to confess, but this is potentially troubling to us.
The public’s response to this is not surprising – as one person noted yesterday: “From Marsh’s statement to Mr. Pineda it certainly sounds to me like he’s guilty.”
But the law is a bit weaker on this point. In the instructions given to juries, Calcrim 359, “The defendant may not be convicted of any crime based on (his/her) out-of-court statement[s] alone. Unless you conclude that other evidence shows someone committed the charged crime [or a lesser included offense], you may not rely on any out-of-court statement[s] by the defendant to convict (him/her) [of that crime or lesser offense].”
It is not a terribly high burden as the next line reads, “The other evidence may be slight and need only be enough to support a reasonable inference that someone’s criminal conduct caused an injury, loss, or harm. The other evidence does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged crime actually was committed.”
The concern, of course, is that false confessions do occur all of the time. Research suggests that younger and less well-educated defendants may be more likely to confess to crimes that they did not commit.
The fact that a 16-year-old kid was interrogated outside of the presence of attorneys concerns us about the validity of this confession. Without additional evidence, we believe that the public needs to withhold judgment and that the news media needed to emphasis critical points here that this was really one single side of the story.
We have no idea what the defense tactic will be. The defense here essentially played possum. They might have been willing to stipulate to there being sufficient evidence for a “holding order” – enough evidence to hold Mr. Marsh to answer to a jury on the charges – under the right conditions. Apparently, according to discussion prior to the preliminary hearing, the two sides were not able to agree.
What we do not know is whether the defense can punch holes in the confession. We do not know if the police found DNA evidence to corroborate Mr. Marsh’s story. In short, we need to wait.
We also need to remember this is a small community. That lesson was driven home to me last winter when we covered the trial of Thaddeus Sonne, accused of rape and ultimately acquitted. The detective in that case, by the way, was Ariel Pineda. I could not walk down the street without running into people who knew either Mr. Sonne or the alleged victim in that case.
One reader has commented, “My initial assessment stands, this young man is a sociopath, lacking all compassion and empathy. I hope, in his interest, his attorney will work out a plea that places him in a maximum security facility for the remainder of his life, or until medical science has a serviceable therapy to correct this deficit.”
But the reader made the comment based on what, exactly? Half a story and assumptions?
As another reader noted, “The labeling of this young man as a ‘sociopath lacking all compassion and empathy’ is uninformed. The only person who can make a determination like that is the licensed professional assessing him. I’ve known Daniel since he was a little boy, and I continue to see him once a week in Juvenile Hall, and he is both compassionate and empathetic. I’ll leave it there.”
It is difficult. We all want to rush to judgment, but we need to wait until all of the facts are in evidence before we decide that this young man is guilty of this horrific crime and, if he is, we may never know why he did it.
We all need to remember that there are people in this community who will read our words and who may well know either the victims or the defendant or his family very well.
Once again, it is the statement of Mary Northup, the daughter of Oliver Northup, whose words to the local paper ring most true, “It’s just a tragedy. There’s nothing more to say.”
And really, despite the testimony on Friday, that’s all we know now – it’s just a tragedy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If the Yolo County D.A., Jeff Reisig, chose not to prosecute John Pike for the pepper spraying, when Pike was, according to informed opinion, clearly guilty of violating the protesters’ Constitutuonal rights, then how can we trust *any* decision made by the D.A. on whom to prosecute?
The Enterprise reported “Pineda said investigators later recovered Marsh’s bloodied clothing — including a black pilot’s jacket that Marsh described keeping as a “souvenir” — in the garage of his home”.
In my opinion, and I am allowed that, it doesn’t look good for Mr. Marsh.
@Growth Izzue: My point about DA Jeff Reisig was he looked at the pepper spraying and declared that white was black and black was white. In other words, we’re “through the looking glass” now and are in an Alice in Wonderland phase of justice in Yolo County. Nothing would surprise me now.
And I’m concerned about accepting any evidence that has not had to withstand cross-examination without a grain of salt.
Please Brianriley, give it a rest, this case isn’t about pepper spraying or John Pike.
He didn’t say it was.
Well let’s just say that so far from what I read of the evidence that I trust Jeff Reiseg with his decision to prosecute this case, just an “informed opinion”.
“It is difficult. We all want to rush to judgment, but we need to wait until all of the facts are in evidence between we decide that this young man is guilty of this horrific crime and if he is, we may never know why he did it.”
I’m more in a rush to understand. I admit it’s a selfish and self-serving desire to satisfy my own morbid curiosity. It’s good or me to remember that while normally events like these are so far removed from my life that my speculations would never be seen by those involved, in this case, as David mentions that’s not true. I will try to keep this in mind in when writing future posts.
I agree with David about the power of testing the evidence before deciding. For instance: here is something that has been bothering me about the reported confession. And maybe this is a problem with the reporting, or maybe it is a problem with the recounted facts: How is it possible– maybe it is, but it’s not immediately apparent–to stab one person lying in bed next to another person (no comment about separate beds, so I’m assuming) who screams, and is stabbed repeatedly– and THEN the other person wakes up? How is it possible to sleep during your mate’s screams, movement on the bed, the aura of panic in the air, how is it possible to stay asleep while the person closest to you in the world emotionally, and close to you in bed physically, is screaming and being stabbed and killed? We all are very gullible I think, and naturally “accept” what is given to us as being what it says it is. So I wonder. . . . . . .whether the story represents what happened. Certainly a youngster who has never been married could make up a story which would seem plausible about the stabbing– who woke up when– but as a long-time wife, placing myself in the position of the spouse who reportedly woke second, I want further explanation about the timing to understand what happened. And this is only one example, so it behooves us all to force ourselves to slow down. . . . . and wait with an open mind about what took place until all the evidence can be tested. . . .
You are confusing the responsibility of the courts and the jury with the thinking of private individuals. Unless we are part of the trial we get to think whatever we want. You wanted this hearing to be public then you argue against rushing to judgement. You have no one to blame but yourself. It wasn’t that long ago when, because of his age, his name and trial would have been off limits to the press.
From the looks of things the question remains whether an insanity plea is justified. Right now the notion that this kid might get out someday, even many years into the future, is my greatest concern. Maybe my opinion will change as more is revealed and challenged but right now I’m doubtful.
You bring up the cops assertion that two people gave Marsh up and as an example of not rushing to judgement you question the veracity of the officers claim. Yet in my mind the interesting question that hasn’t been answered is what led the police to this kid?
[quote]it doesn’t look good for Mr. Marsh.[/quote]
This is certainly a true statement regardless of the circumstances surrounding this crime. And our community is being complicit in making it highly unlikely that any good will come to, or be done for, Mr. Marsh.
This is hammered home by the lurid from page of today’s Enterprise that shows a close photo of a dazed appearing Mr. Marsh handcuffed above a lovely photo of the victims undoubtedly intended to stir up already high emotions. I am appalled and hope that others will be too sufficiently to send letters to
Debbie Davis to stop the raw appeal to our baser emotions and provide us with fact.
But let’s for a moment look at what actually might be “good for” Mr. Marsh and our community.
1. Trial as an adult – how does this benefit an individual who is obviously, by any standard still a child ?
How does it benefit the community ? Does anyone believe this will serve as a deterrent to other
indivduals in similar circumstances ?
2. Trial in the media when there is significant evidence being presented that Mr. Marsh may have
a disabling mental condition which precluded his acting in a controlled conscious manner. Could the
DA and the community as a whole really not have waited until a thorough mental health assessment
has been completed. Or if it has been, could we not withhold or at least present in a balanced, non
prejudicial manner the facts of the case even though the actual assessment would be protected under
HIPPA.
3. Something “good” for Mr. Marsh namely an accurate assessment of what may have been
causal of the actions of which he is accused and such treatment as may be available provided should be
the goal on the individual level.
4. Something “good” for our community might be a thorough assessment of the state of public mental
health endeavors, early identification of at risk individuals, and free provision of best available care
based on established best practices.
I fail to see how labeling, finger pointing, and yellow journalism ( even in pictorial form) advances either of these “goods”.
“At this point it is a big question mark whether a police detective lied to a kid to get him to confess, but this potentially troubling to us.”
Why? Either Detective Peneda told the kid the truth or he didn’t. Either way, at this point, what difference does it make?
—
“What we do not know is whether the defense can punch holes in the confession. We do not know if the police found DNA evidence to corroborate Mr. Marsh’s story. In short we need to wait….We all want to rush to judgment, but we need to wait until all of the facts are in evidence between we decide that this young man is guilty of this horrific crime and if he is, we may never know why he did it.”
Who “needs to wait”? Why? Wait for what?
Before we do what? Before we report on the murders or the arrests or the charges or the court hearings? Before we form personal opinions on the facts the Vanguard and others report?
There is no right that prohibits citizens from hearing, thinking, expressing opinions (even those made on half-assed or false information). Our right to a fair trial assumes that the public has heard about the case in our open society and that there’s a natural likelihood that many have made up their minds before there’s a trial–if, by some remote chance, there even is one.
No public purpose is served by the citizenry withholding judgment and keeping quiet (as though it’s even a possibility) “until all the facts are in evidence.” Even if there is a trial, only the “facts” that the defense and the prosecution think will carry their sides get put into evidence.
Even if there’s a fair trial, we’re left with little more than some confidence that the jury got it right. In the meantime, people get to hear and think and express all range of opinions (as is obvious here), including the opinion that people should not do such things.
“You are confusing the responsibility of the courts and the jury with the thinking of private individuals.”
I’m not.
“Unless we are part of the trial we get to think whatever we want.”
In technical sense perhaps, but that doesn’t mean I can’t caution people as to why they should hold their judgment and their thoughts. You seem to be the one confusing what is lawful and what is practical now. You seem to think I’m laying down the law, where in actuality I’m giving people reasons why they ought to wait and withhold judgment until the facts come out.
“You wanted this hearing to be public then you argue against rushing to judgement.”
Yeah and? I didn’t argue for holding the hearing in public because I wanted people to rush to judgment. I thought Ron Johnson made solid points in arguing why it should be withheld. Ultimately, I felt the need to be open outweighed those concerns, I still do. That doesn’t negate the concerns.
“You have no one to blame but yourself. It wasn’t that long ago when, because of his age, his name and trial would have been off limits to the press.”
I have no one to blame but myself? I didn’t make the decision. Judge Fall was never going to close the court. And the laws of the land were not made by me. Hyperbole?
I’m not convinced that secret hearings are to the advantage of those in the legal system even for juveniles. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t point out to the public that Ron Johnson did not even cross examine the police.
“Why? Either Detective Peneda told the kid the truth or he didn’t. Either way, at this point, what difference does it make? “
I think it’s immoral for the police to lie – particularly to a kid – in order to get them to confess. It may not impact this case, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t point it out.
GI: “Please Brianriley, give it a rest, this case isn’t about pepper spraying or John Pike.”
DG: “He didn’t say it was.”
Of course, he did. GI claimed we can’t trust any decision the DA makes on charging; he certainly was relating the Pike incident to this one and was reacting to your story. GI is correct that this case isn’t about Pike, but br429 claims it is without suggesting with what crime he thinks the DA should have charged him.
—
“…And our community is being complicit in making it highly unlikely that any good will come to, or be done for, Mr. Marsh. This is hammered home by the lurid from page of today’s Enterprise that shows a close photo of a dazed appearing Mr. Marsh handcuffed above a lovely photo of the victims undoubtedly intended to stir up already high emotions. I am appalled and hope that others will be too sufficiently to send letters to Debbie Davis to stop the raw appeal to our baser emotions and provide us with fact….”
See what I mean about the natural tendency to evaluate and make up our minds on little evidence, and, then, the right to express our uninformed opinion in a public forum?
“Undoubtedly intended to stir up already high emotions…the raw appeal to our baser emotions”? We’re does this biased conclusion-stated-as-fact even come from?
That said, I’m all in with you on the barbarous practice of trying children as adults. At least, there’s been a decision to temper this stupid law by stopping our murdering of kids who have been judged guilty.
As to your early conclusion that “there is significant evidence being presented that Mr. Marsh may have a disabling mental condition which precluded his acting in a controlled conscious manner,” I might agree if the Vanguard hadn’t cautioned us not to say such things until all the evidence has been presented.
P.S., medwoman, when I cut and past from your comments, I get carriage returns in the middle of sentences. I wonder whether such invisible symbols have anything to do with you having problems getting your comments to post. “Carriage returns”? Another worthwhile expression our grandkids can’t comprehend.
Medwoman:
[quote]This is hammered home by the lurid from page of today’s Enterprise that shows a close photo of a dazed appearing Mr. Marsh handcuffed above a lovely photo of the victims undoubtedly intended to stir up already high emotions. I am appalled and hope that others will be too sufficiently to send letters to
Debbie Davis to stop the raw appeal to our baser emotions and provide us with fact.
[/quote]
Oh please, the Enterprise is just reporting on the story. There’s
nothing “lurid” about the pics. Now if they had pics of the crime scene then I might agree with you.
Funny how many here who now want to admonish others to not rush to judgement had no trouble doing just that when a noose was found hanging from our high school goal posts. Still to this day we don’t know if it was indeed an act of racial hate or the act of a local racial activist just trying to stir things up.
Growth: Is there a need to show a close up photo of a 16 year old in shackles?
“Funny how many here who now want to admonish others to not rush to judgement had no trouble doing just that when a noose was found hanging from our high school goal posts.”
You really don’t see a difference? Had there been a specific suspect in custody, then you might have a point. In this case, Ron didn’t cross examine the officers, we don’t know what he’s going to offer as a defense.
“Why? Either Detective Peneda told the kid the truth or he didn’t. Either way, at this point, what difference does it make? ”
“I think it’s immoral for the police to lie – particularly to a kid – in order to get them to confess. It may not impact this case, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t point it out.”
Well, there you go, thinking that something is immoral even though its legal.
No matter the techniques used to get a voluntary confession, a guilty finding requires other evidence, as you point out. Sometimes, the confession leads to the other, very incriminating, evidence. Sometimes, the confession rightly clears others who’ve been charged and/or convicted.
So, many confessions lead to the truth. “Technically,” they’re fine. Maybe, someday, saying “your buddies said you did it” will be determined an unconstitutional technique. For now, I think the requirement for corroboration minimized problems about “false confessions.”
Next, you’ll be thinking that there’s something immoral about defense lawyers misleading the court and criminals lying to investigators.
“Well, there you go, thinking that something is immoral even though its legal.”
I think Capital Punishment is immoral and it’s currently legal.
“No matter the techniques used to get a voluntary confession, a guilty finding requires other evidence, as you point out. Sometimes, the confession leads to the other, very incriminating, evidence. Sometimes, the confession rightly clears others who’ve been charged and/or convicted. “
And sometimes the evidence leads to a wrongful conviction.
“Next, you’ll be thinking that there’s something immoral about defense lawyers misleading the court and criminals lying to investigators. “
How weird of me.
Well, there you go, agreeing with me about the immorality of capital punishment.
“Sometimes” wrongful convictions is the price we pay in accepting voluntary confessions that are corroborated by physical evidence and in believing in the right to a fair trial with a jury determining guilt.
Your alternative to perfection (eliminating true confessions encouraged with misleading investigator claims) isn’t better than mine (voluntary confessions that clear many other suspects that might get wrongfully convicted even as they claim their innocence). I’ll bet mine keeps more innocent folks out of jail than yours would.
Thank you David for this article. Well done.
“Funny how many here who now want to admonish others to not rush to judgement had no trouble doing just that when a noose was found hanging from our high school goal posts.”
As a private citizen I have no problem assuming the cops got this one right and that nooses are a symbol of racial hate.
“I have no one to blame but myself? I didn’t make the decision. Judge Fall was never going to close the court. And the laws of the land were not made by me. Hyperbole?”
Hyperbole, of course. Still you chose to be party to the filing demanding an open hearing, something, if you honestly believe Judge Fall was never going to close the hearing, was unnecessary.
[quote]Oh please, the Enterprise is just reporting on the story. There’s
nothing “lurid” about the pics. Now if they had pics of the crime scene then I might agree with you.[quote][
My problem was not with the Enterprise reporting the story. My problem was what I see as the overly dramatic, and yes, if you include some of the more graphic descriptions of the crime details from the story, “lurid” presentation. There are many ways of reporting a story. I would have had no problem with the standard court artists portrayal of Mr. Marsh in the court room. I do have a problem with the giant headline and juxtaposed photos which I feel are being used only as attention grabbing sales promotion for the Enterprise. And I have a problem with egregiously detailed description of the injuries. Surely words to the effect of “foreign body placement” or “wound manipulation” would have conveyed the same information without the emotionally wrenching details. Again, I fail to see how this better informs the community.
You also imply in your post that you also have a limit. You would have drawn your line at crime scene photos. So what we have is merely a difference of opinion at where the line of appropriateness lies.
Again, I apologize for the posting error. I seem to be making more and more of these. Haven’t found my problem, but I promise I will try harder not to make this more difficult for you all.
Medwoamn
[quote]You would have drawn your line at crime scene photos. So what we have is merely a difference of opinion at where the line of appropriateness lies.[/quote]
Geez, there’s a huge difference between merely posting a pic of the defendant in cuffs and a family picture of the victims and graphic crime scene photos. Our lines are a mile apart.
GI
[quote]here’s a huge difference between merely posting a pic of the defendant in cuffs and a family picture of the victims and graphic crime scene photos. Our lines are a mile apart.[/quote]
To me, not so much so. Please bear in mind that I am a surgeon. Descriptions of body parts including what lies in the internal cavities are not disturbing to me. And yet the first thing I said to my partner upon seeing the front page, not even yet having read the story, is “This nauseates me”. And I met that literally.
I felt sick to my stomach albeit transiently. Psychological trauma can be as debilitating as blood and guts
trauma. What came to my mind was the potential adverse impact on the families on both sides. Might this have a major deleterious impact on them ?
What I saw was an extremely exploitative use of these photographs for no reason that I can discern other than boosting newspaper sales. The exact same information could have been conveyed in very different ways as per my previous post. My partner saw it closer to your way than to mine. Fair enough.
But given that there are different ways to see this, what makes your way inherently better than mine ?
Could the Enterprise really not use a modicum of discretion and still get out the story ?
Brian429:
The difference between the Pike case and this case is “law enforcement”. D.A.’s depend each day on law enforcement making their cases for them in court, saying the right things whether truthful or not. So D.A.’s don’t want to prosecute law enforcement; it will offend the brotherhood. If D.A.’s are forced to prosecute someone in law enforcement, you’ll find that they lose critical evidence, LOL, or don’t charge all the related crimes, they recommend minimal time or probation, and the law enforcement agency does everything it can to help their person including arresting or harassing the complaining party, or the party’s family, or blackmailing the complainant’s attorney. It is not a fair or ethical culture in the D.A.’s office or law enforcement. So, Pike’s case was no surprise. You’ll see others.
D.A.’s seem to overcompensate and crucify defendants when they have the opportunity.
What normal person would charge Marsh as an adult? Cruel and unjust –
Medication: No need to lock Marsh up forever, with the right mix of medication he’ll do okay.
It’s criminal that the mental hospital released him when he wasn’t stable at all.
Does anyone know which hospital Marsh was in?
Thank goodness for people like Bill who see through the illness.
@JustSaying: Regarding Pike, try aggravated assault, PC 243(d). You need to read Young v. County of Los Angeles.
“Geez, there’s a huge difference between merely posting a pic of the defendant in cuffs and a family picture of the victims and graphic crime scene photos. Our lines are a mile apart. “
he’s a kid still and he hasn’t been convicted, i would’ve expected better discretion for the empty-prize.
[quote]he’s a kid still and he hasn’t been convicted, i would’ve expected better discretion for the empty-prize. [/quote]
A “kid” who’s on trial for the grizzly murders of two upstanding Davis senior citizens. The Enterprise did nothing wrong.
[quote]Again, I apologize for the posting error. I seem to be making more and more of these. Haven’t found my problem, but I promise I will try harder not to make this more difficult for you all.[/quote]
It was just a problem with the tag. I usually fix those when I see them.
David wrote:
> I think it’s immoral for the police to lie –
> particularly to a kid – in order to get them
> to confess.
If a cop lied to me it would not get me to confess…
It sounds like David feels that kid was forced (or tricked) to confess since the cop told a lie.
Other than David I’m wondering if anyone else would confess to a double murder if a cop lied and told them “someone said they did it”?
SOD
[quote]Other than David I’m wondering if anyone else would confess to a double murder if a cop lied and told them “someone said they did it”? [/quote]
That’s what I thought also. To me obviously once Pineda told Marsh that “there were two people who said Mr. Marsh did it” he changed his tune. If Marsh knew that there’s no way any of his friends could possibly know I can’t in the world see why that would make him confess. In my opinion Marsh knew that Pineda’s statement could be true and he gave in.
brianriley429: “If the Yolo County D.A., Jeff Reisig, chose not to prosecute John Pike for the pepper spraying, when Pike was, according to informed opinion, clearly guilty of violating the protesters’ Constitutuonal rights, then how can we trust *any* decision made by the D.A. on whom to prosecute?”
JS: “GI is correct that this case isn’t about Pike, but br429 claims it is without suggesting with what crime he thinks the DA should have charged him.”
brianriley429: “Regarding Pike, try aggravated assault, PC 243(d). You need to read Young v. County of Los Angeles.”
“This case arises from a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation in which Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Richard Wells pepper sprayed Mark Anthony Young and struck him with a baton after Young exited his vehicle and disobeyed Wells’s order to reenter it.”
Thanks, br429, for the interesting citation. I see the similarities to what happened at UCD, even though broccoli was only involved in one.
But, of course, the L.A. case you provide has absolutely nothing to do with any criminal charges against Deputy Wells, let alone anything about about aggravated assault. As far as I can see, there were no criminal charges ever were filed about the deputy’s actions.
I guess that Reisig could charge (or overcharge) Pike with aggravated assault or jay walking or urinating in public or murder. But, first, we would expect him to be convinced that the prosecution could prevail in court. Nothing suggests that Pike could be successfully prosecuted for his poor actions on campus that evening.
Since I don’t want the D.A. going around needlessly charging people who won’t be convicted of any crime just to temporarily appease a vocal segment of our community, I’ll have to trust him to make the calls both ways, even when I don’t agree in every case.
It seems this should be a straightforward case:
(1) Confessed to eviscerating and removing organs from bodies and replacing with objects (cell phone and another object; I disremember what). Investigators/coroner know whether or not this statement is accurate. Unless this info. was leaked by authorities and picked up by Marsh before his confession; only the perp could have known these details (or I suppose the perp himself may have talked about what they did to friends/acquaintances and the news spread via grapevine; in which case Marsh’s confession could be a false confession).
(2) DNA evidence at crime scene and on Marsh’s jacket (and other objects/clothing). Easy to confirm whether or not there is a match
(Unless, conceivably, a ‘friend’/acquaintance of Marsh is framing Marsh for the crime).
These two items alone, if confirmed, are strong (but perhaps not unequivocal) evidence as to who committed the act. Presumably there is a lot of other evidence.
[i][b]Open Question[/b][/i]: What changes if he is not tried as an adult? Since Mr. Marsh was only 15 when the crime occurred, could this be a basis for a mistrial or a future retrial
Empirical evidence disagrees SOD
Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff, and False Confessions ([url]http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Perillo & Kassin (in press) – LHB bluff studies[/url])
“Many police investigators are trained in use of the Reid technique, a multistep approach to interrogation that is designed to increase the anxiety associated with denial while reducing the anxiety associated with confession (Inbau, Buckley, Reid, & Jayne, 2001). Perhaps, the most controversial tactic permissible within this approach involves the false evidence ploy by which interrogators bolster an accusation by presenting the suspect with supposedly incontrovertible evidence of his or her guilt (e.g., a fingerprint, blood or hair sample, eyewitness identification, or failed polygraph)—even if that evidence does not exist. In the United States, this type of deception is permitted by law (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969), recommended under certain circumstances (Inbau et al., 2001), and occasionally used by police (Kassin et al., 2007; Leo, 1996).”
It continues:
“Drawing on the distinction between coerced-compliant and internalized false confessions (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985), there are two mechanisms by which innocent suspects might confess when confronted with false evidence. First, research has shown that people in general confess as an act of social compliance when they feel trapped by the apparent strength of the evidence against them and perceive no other means of escape (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson,
1999; Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992). Second, research has shown that false evidence, a strong form of misinformation, can create confusion and lead people to doubt their own beliefs, at times internalizing guilt and confabulating memories for crimes they did not commit (Kassin, 2007; for a more general review of the misinformation effect, see Loftus, 2005).”
“What I saw was an extremely exploitative use of these photographs for no reason that I can discern other than boosting newspaper sales….I do have a problem with the giant headline and juxtaposed photos which I feel are being used only as attention grabbing sales promotion for the Enterprise.”
Now, you’re doubling down, medwoman, with ever more psychological analyses of the Enterprise editor’s motivations.
I can see how you can jump to the conclusions that you have when you start with such a view of our local paper’s employees. I see a far more benign situation, pretty much standard coverage of the most significant local crime story in decades.
Perhaps you wouldn’t have been so tramatized if you hadn’t leaped to the idea that the front page was somehow “lurid” because it included “a close photo of a dazed appearing Mr. Marsh handcuffed above a lovely photo of the victims undoubtedly intended to stir up already high emotions.”
I actually viewed the young man’s photo as a positive considering his earlier unkempt appearance. And he certainly didn’t look dazed to me, but I’ll defer to your expertise.
The fact that the two photos appeared together, “juxtaposed,” means nothing except that they go together with the same story. Your solution of using an artist’s rendering instead of the photograph would make things different, how?
“Police: Teen confessed to killing Davis couple; Marsh ordered to stand trial after hourlong hearing”–Pretty straight forward expression of what happened at the hearing, I’d say.
An officer testified that the accused said he put a cell phone and a glass into the wounds. I suspect that investigators found the corroborating items at the scene pretty much as the confession laid things out.
I don’t see how “the expressions ‘foreign body placement’ or ‘wound manipulation’ would have conveyed the same information without the emotionally wrenching details.” The first one is so meaningless as to be worthless to convey anything close to what happened and the second makes me want to throw up even though it isnt clear what your talking about.
This is an awful thing to have happened and an awful situation for our city to face. “Emotionally wrenching” pretty well describes it. But, there’s really no way to make it any better or more palatable by complaining that it’s (very logically) being reported accurately and clearly by the media.
.
“Open Question: What changes if he is not tried as an adult? Since Mr. Marsh was only 15 when the crime occurred, could this be a basis for a mistrial or a future retrial.”
Good question, Steve. Everything changes, in my opinion. The assumptions about culpability, capability, jury trial, guilt, punishment–all would different if a child is treated as a child instead of an adult. However, since we’ve decided that children aren’t children if we want to show that we’re tough on crime and try them as adults sometimes, we’ve made it a legal avenue of prosecution. No mistrials or retrials for undertaking this barbarous practice.
David writes:
> Empirical evidence disagrees SOD
Yet not a single person has posted that they would admit to a double murder if a cop told them “someone said they did it”…
[quote]”Yet not a single person has posted that they would admit to a double murder if a cop told them ‘someone said they did it’…”[/quote]I’m sure you can accept David’s research that suggests people other than Vanguard readers provide untrue confessions for the reasons he lists (although his link doesn’t work to look at the details).
We now have a remedy to assure that a confession won’t be allowed to be be the only basis for conviction. Now, we presume that in looking for evidence to substantiate a confession, police would be unable to find evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, we presume that a true confession would lead police to evidence that would further confirm guilt, even to the extent that the confession might not even need to be used.
The key is this part of David’s selection is: [quote]”In the United States, this type of deception is permitted by law…recommended under certain circumstances…and occasionally used by police.”[/quote]
Yet, the practice troubles David because it’s immoral in his mind. That’s a fine stand, but needs to be put in perspective of a practice that’s “permitted…recommended…and occasionally used….”
While David claims that “the concern, of course, is that false confessions do occur all of the time,” he offers no studies for such a wide-ranging claim. He also doesn’t explain what an “occasionally used” tactic has to do with an “all the time’ outcome.
Even more important, there appears little reason even to bring up the speculation that there was any lying involved in obtaining this confession. Of course, we don’t know what we don’t know.
“Yet not a single person has posted that they would admit to a double murder if a cop told them “someone said they did it”..”
Come on, you’re smarter than that.
Last night I was talking to a local supervisor who also happens to work for the LA DA’s office, he told that there is a bill on the governor’s desk that would require videotaping for juveniles under interrogation.
“he offers no studies for such a wide-ranging claim. He also doesn’t explain what an “occasionally used” tactic has to do with an “all the time’ outcome. “
What do you mean I offered no studies? The Innocence Project has found false confessions to be among the leading causes for wrongful conviction, I’ve presented that research on numerous occasions.
The Innocence Project reflects an exceedingly small percentage of the country’s criminal cases, even more tiny by the time they get to the state of “wrongful convictions.”
The concern, as you expressed it in this article, is that “false confessions do occur all the time.” So, I figure you should provide some evidence to support what appears to be a dramatic overstatement.
You also conflated the “occasionally used” practice of misleading suspects and “all the time” false confessions. They don’t seem to go together without some explanation.
With that questionable groundwork, you’ve expressed concern that this could have happened in the Marsh case and that everyone (else) “need(s) to wait until all of the facts are in evidence” and “slow down on the rush to judgement.”
It seem as though you’re engaging in the same kind of speculation you abhor
Thanks for launching this discussion, David. And thanks for advocating caution in the rush to judgement. THis is very important for our community and very important for each of us individually.
JustSaying: True, the data so far from the Innocence Project is limited in scope and numbers, but I think there is enough research on false confessions that we ought to be concerned. Were best practices followed in the interrogation? I don’t think so. But perhaps your view differs.
I certainly agree that the IP has proved that we ought to be very concerned. We should continue to make changes in evidence requirements, training, standards, etc.
What I don’t think we should do is exaggerate the problem by claiming that “”false confessions do occur all the time” when it isn’t true. Then to suggest that the false confessions are the result of the occasional practice of misleading suspects would seem to require some substantiation.
I have no reason to know whether “best practices” were followed in the Marsh interrogation, knowing only what the Vanguard and the Enterprise has reported You haven’t provided any claim (until 12:04 p.m.) or any evidence about any best practices that were not followed.
I’d be interested in knowing what best practices you feel were violated in this case and why.
Just Saying:
It occurs to me that you are interpreting this comment differently from how I intended it.
To me stating that “false confessions do occur all the time” – means that they are not unusual occurrences that we should write off. However, what I don’t mean is that they happen every single time, which is how it seems you are interpreting the comment.
I do find it interesting that looking up the phrase in the Free Dictionary there are three meaning to “all the time.” One is literally throughout a specific period of time, another is figuratively, continuously, and finally is my intended meaning which is repeatedly or habitually.
So from that standpoint you are correct, I should not have used such an imprecise phrase to describe something of this nature. My intent was to suggest that these were not rare occurrences that one could simply write off as anomaly.
Now that you’ve defined “all the time” to a figurative slang form that, “it hasn’t stopped–it’s still happening,” I think I understand.
I guess my natural tendency is to take an apparently definitative statement like, “The concern, of course, is that false confessions do occur all the time,” to carry more weight that some figurative offering. The trouble is that it could come across as hyperbole to some readers. I’ll be more cautious in the future.
Whether false questions really are “not rare” probably could use some explanation as to the universe you’re discussing. How many false questions are there with respect to the number criminal cases or even to the number of confessions that are obtained. I’d imagine, based on the number that the Innocence Project has found, that false confessions are an occasional occurrence and that misleading interrogations leading to false confessions is a truly rare subset. But, you probable have more information to show how common this might be.
I’m equally as interested you clarifying what interrogation best practices were violated in the Marsh case.
what we can all agree on is that the vanguard honors all of us by honoring 2 of the best ever steve and oliver, gone from defending the indefensible before their time. ron johnson and andrea pelecino carry on for all of us in this one. the rest is for another day.
“Why? Either Detective Peneda told the kid the truth or he didn’t. Either way, at this point, what difference does it make?”
I agree with David, it is immoral for the police to lie. And it isn’t fair. Citizens are often punished if they lie to law enforcement. But law enforcement officers are allowed to lie. I have experienced this lying first hand. An officer in another county lied to me, when they were questioning me about a friend of mine. Since my dad was a cop, I felt very disappointed to find out this lying occurs as standard procedure. Lying as an excuse to “get at the truth” is hogwash. It is hypocritical.