Deception Used By Interrogators Rendered Confession Involuntary As a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, as a matter of law, defendant’s confession had been coerced by impermissible deception. The confession was suppressed and a new trial ordered. The interrogators told the defendant (1) his wife would be arrested if he did not confess to responsibility for injuries to their child and (2) disclosure of the circumstances of the injury was necessary to allow the doctors to save the child’s life (the child already had been declared brain-dead):

It is the People's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements of a defendant they intend to rely upon at trial are voluntary … . To do that, they must show that the statements were not products of coercion, either physical or psychological …, or, in other words that they were given as a result of a “free and unconstrained choice by [their] maker” … . The task is the same where deception is employed in the service of psychologically oriented interrogation; the statements must be proved, under the totality of the circumstances … — necessarily including any potentially actuating deception — the product of the maker's own choice. The choice to speak where speech may incriminate is constitutionally that of the individual, not the government, and the government may not effectively eliminate it by any coercive device. It is well established that not all deception of a suspect is coercive, but in extreme forms it may be. Whether deception or other psychologically directed stratagems actually eclipse individual will, will of course depend upon the facts of each case, both as they bear upon the means employed and the vulnerability of the declarant. There are cases, however, in which voluntariness may be determined as a matter of law — in which the facts of record permit but one legal conclusion as to whether the declarant's will was overborne … . This, we believe, is such a case. What transpired during defendant's interrogation was not consonant with and, indeed, completely undermined, defendant's right not to incriminate himself — to remain silent. People v Thomas, 18, CtApp 2-20-14