Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule.

Abstract

Prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), two studies evaluated the proposition that an erroneously admitted coerced confession can be considered “harmless error.” Mock jurors read transcripts of a murder trial containing a confession that was (1) elicited in a high- or low-pressure interrogation, and (2) ruled admissible or inadmissible by the judge (no-confession control groups were also included). As prescribed by law, jurors saw the high-pressure confession as less voluntary, correctly recalled the judge's ruling, and reported that it had less influence on their decisions. On verdicts, however, the confession increased the conviction rate—even when it was seen as coerced, even when it was stricken from the record, and even when jurors said it had no influence. These results suggest that appellate courts should exercise caution in applying the harmless error rule to the admission of coerced confessions.