Scenes of a Crime is a fascinating documentary examining
the case and confession of Adrian Thomas. On September 21, 2008, one of Adrian Thomas’s four-month-old
twin sons, Matthew, was taken to the hospital for difficulty breathing. The admitting doctor identified signs of
Sepsis (caused by infection) and started to treat Matthew with antibiotics and ordered
testing. Matthew was transferred to another
hospital where Dr. Walter Edge, who was working in the Pediatric Intensive Care
Unit, was concerned with fluid around Matthew’s brain. Dr. Edge suspected the fluid was the result
of intentional abuse and notified the police; Child
Protective Services removed Thomas’s six other children from the home. Later at the hospital, Dr. Edge told the detectives
“somebody murdered this child, this child [is] going to die.”
At this point,
the officers figured it was either the mother or Thomas who had injured Matthew. When the interrogation began, Thomas was told
that he was free to leave, and was not under arrest, but he was read his
Miranda rights. The interrogation was
recorded without Thomas’s knowledge. The
first part of the interrogation lasted two hours.
The detectives stopped when Thomas said he might kill himself if his son
did not survive. Thomas was then
transferred to a hospital and kept there for sixteen hours for
observation.
While Thomas was
being evaluated, he was not allowed to contact anyone, nor was he updated on
his son’s condition. Dr. Edge spoke with
the detectives again, telling them that no skull fractures were found and Matthew did not have any broken bones. Dr. Edge continued to maintain that the
injury was the result of non-accidental blunt force trauma.
Thomas may have
been able to sleep for an hour and a half.
Upon his release, detectives took Thomas back to the interrogation room
where he was again told he was not under arrest and read his Miranda rights. This interrogation lasted over seven
hours.
During the
interrogation the detectives constantly lied to Thomas. They told him that the medical evidence was
conclusive that the injury was the result of an adult slamming Matthew’s head
hard against a solid surface, and that Thomas could save his child’s life by
admitting to what he had done. The
detectives told Thomas that it must have been an accident and he would not be
arrested if it were an accident and that it was either him or his wife who hurt
their son; Thomas responded by saying his wife was a good person and if it came
down to that, he would take the fall for her.
Throughout the interrogation, Thomas constantly denied intentionally
hurting his son but slowly started to break-down and parrot what the detectives
had been saying to him: that maybe it was an accident or he bumped Matthew’s
head as he was putting him into the crib.
Later in the
interrogation, the detectives demonstrated with a notebook how Thomas must have
thrown his son down and then asked Thomas to demonstrate with the notebook how he threw Matthew
down. The detective
insisted that Thomas do it multiple times, adding more force each time. Thomas
eventually signed a confession, which he quickly recanted.
The jury saw most
of his ten-hour interrogation. At trial,
experts for the defense testified that they reviewed the autopsy reports and test
results and found persuasive evidence indicating that Matthew died as the
result of an infection. Defense experts
believed that Dr. Edge and the Medical Examiner, Dr. Michael Sicirica,
disregarded the indications of infection.
Thomas was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to
twenty-five years to life.
Thomas has an
appeal pending before the highest court in New York: the Court of Appeals, sometime
in the fall of 2013. The issues to be examined include whether the confession was involuntary due to coercive
police tactics, whether the trial judge rightly barred the admission of testimony by Richard Ofshe,
a renowned interrogation and false confession expert, and whether there was
sufficient evidence to convict based on the convincing defense expert testimony
that the child’s death was caused by infection and not trauma.
Scenes of a Crime was interesting to watch because it
examines and shows parts of the actual interrogation. The case and interrogation are explained through
interviews of people involved in the case (including the defense attorneys, prosecuting
attorneys, two of the interrogating officers, defense medical experts, a false
confession expert, two jurors, and Thomas himself). The viewer is presented with all the different
sides to the case. The police admit to
lying to Thomas to try to get him to confess and say they will lie as much as
necessary to get the suspect to confess.
Throughout the documentary, there are also clips from a training video
for the Reid technique,
a widely use interrogation method that instructs police to lie and use
minimization techniques to induce confessions.
Dr. Ofshe, discusses how the Reid technique and tactics the police
practiced in Thomas’s interrogation could lead to false confessions and in this
case, likely did.
Another very
interesting aspect of the documentary were the interviews with two of the jurors. One of the jurors said she did not like the
officers’ use of deceit but believed the confession to be truthful. Another juror saw no error with the officers’
tactics and thought Thomas was genuine in the video but cold and arrogant on
the stand. This juror also said that she
would have been insulted if Dr. Ofshe was allowed to testify because she could
tell when a person was lying.
The latter juror’s statement
is the very reason why false confession experts are necessary in cases of
recanted confessions that are likely false and the result of coercive police
tactics. Dr. Ofshe would not have
testified that Thomas gave a false confession; he would have offered his expert
opinion that false confessions can occur and have been found to occur under
certain circumstances. Most people do
not think someone would falsely confess to a crime, but they can be induced to falsely
confess due to psychological coercive interrogation techniques, and it is for
this reason that expert testimony is necessary.
New York uses
the Frye standard when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony at trial. The standard
is commonly known as the “general acceptance test”: “the thing from which the
deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general
acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” At the Thomas trial, the judge barred Dr.
Ofshe from testifying because it was not beyond the knowledge of the jury and
according to the judge, false confession testimony had not gained “general
acceptance” yet. However, there are many
academic articles and resources that have tested the possibility of false confessions and studied how they
occur.
Confessions,
especially taped confessions, are extremely persuasive to juries. Scenes
of a Crime shows how compelling the confession was to the jurors even in
light of extremely convincing scientific evidence supporting the conclusion
that Matthew died because of an infection.
This
documentary would be useful for practitioners to view, especially if they have
cases involving recanted confessions or alleged false confessions. In the interest of justice, police and
prosecutors should be wary of potentially coercive interrogation tactics and,
as Dr. Ofshe explains in the documentary, the best confessions are ones that
give details that could be corroborated and give details that were either not
known by the police or the public. If
the facts between an alleged confession and what actually happened do not match
up, police and prosecutors must fight against tunnel vision and seek the truth
elsewhere.
Defense
attorneys may have difficulty getting false confession experts admitted by
judges, regardless of what admissibility standard the state uses. They should zealously argue that expert
testimony is essential to explaining to the jury under what circumstances false
confessions can occur because of the incredible weight confessions carry with
a jury. Scenes of a Crime ends with a statement by Thomas from prison and
leaves the viewer wondering which scene of a crime the title refers to, the one
Thomas was convicted of, or what went on in the interrogation room, which may
have lead to a grave miscarriage of justice.
Scenes of a
Crime is available at many law school libraries, including American University Washington College
of Law, for more viewer information, click here.
Raleigh Mark
Blog Editor, Criminal Law Practitioner
Image from Scenes of a Crime.
Let's see, false confession testimony hasn't been generally accepted? This is surprising, especially in New York where the Martin Tankleff case In the past several years classically demonstrated the tactics of detectives who, almost immediately, arrested Tankleff, then 17, for savagely murdering his parents. See http://www.martytankleff.org/. After 17 years of wrongful imprisonment, the Governor chose to drop the case. Two other recent cases draw additional attention to the irrational exuberance of the police: Amanda Knox and the West Memphis 3. The 'confessors' in the three cases were a 17-year old, a 16-year old with an IQ of 72 and a young woman arrested in a foreign country. All three were subjected to many hours of interrogation and "tricked.' Incidentally, Jerry Ofshe testified on a limited basis in the WM3 case. False confessions, like disease, seem to have common symptoms and allowing experts to testify to such occurrences ought to be allowed. This documentary film is a much welcome addition to the public's need to understand that a confession, no matter how serious the effect of its utterance, can nevertheless be made for a variety of bad reasons. The only thing that a potential defendant can do is say "I want a lawyer."
ReplyDeleteCriminal law, on the other hand, encompasses issues such as robbery, assault, and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A DUI lawyer falls under the category of legal professionals who work under criminal law.
ReplyDeleteThis case is a classic example of false confessions. Great post.
ReplyDeleteAt the law firm of AZ Debt Relief Group, PLLC we offer unparalleled legal representation regarding your Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing. tucson bankruptcy blog
I recommend only good and reliable information, so see it: generic anchor text
ReplyDelete