Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

306 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
difference is that when convictions are overturned in England appellants are
often afforded a high level of compensation.
Admissibility of Expert Testimony
There are different standards for the admissibility of expert testimony in
England than there are in the American courts. There are no parallel English
tests to the Frye and Daubert standards and exclusionary rules. In England, scientists,
including psychologists and psychiatrists, automatically qualify as experts
provided they are testifying on the subject of their expertise. The English
courts do not generally look closely at the reliability and validity of the expert
evidence presented and its general acceptance in the scientific community.
Indeed, the scientific merit of the evidence presented is often taken for granted
and not challenged. In the USA there is more emphasis on properly and formally
qualifying experts and closely scrutinizing the scientific foundation for
their opinions before allowing them to testify. In England, traditionally the primary
questions are whether or not the expert evidence is relevant and outside
the experience of the ordinary juror (e.g. a mental abnormality or a disorder).
The American courts are not so restricted to issues of mental disorder when
determining the admissibility of expert psychological testimony.
CONCLUSIONS
Under English and American law the courts are confronted with certain practical
problems with regard to assessing the probative weight of confessions
(Zuckerman, 1989). These relate to the fact that police interrogations are conducted
without outside supervision, so that police officers are motivated to
suppress evidence of impropriety whilst defendants who regret making a confession
have a motive to fabricate allegations of police malpractice. Adopting
mandatory audio or video recording of all police custodial interrogations, as is
currently the practice in England, will make it easier to identify police coercion
and impropriety, while at the same time it will protect the police from false
allegations by defendants. The courts have a duty to protect the constitutional
rights of citizens against police coercion, but this has to be balanced against
the police having sufficient power to carry out their investigations effectively
and efficiently. Due process standards do fluctuate over time, but since the ruling
in Colorado v. Connelly (1986) the American courts have shifted away from
considering the reliability of confession evidence and mental state factors as
being relevant to due process voluntariness determination towards relying exclusively
on police coercion per se. Mental state factors and capacities, including
intellectual functioning, are clearly relevant and important when determining
the validity of a Miranda waiver and the reliability of confession evidence. In
future the American courts may shift back towards taking more account of
mental factors in producing involuntary confessions when considering the issues
of coercion. With the Daubert standard superseding the Frye test of expert