Abstract
ABSTRACT Disputed confession evidence is frequently the focus of both expert psychological testimony and psychological research. In United States v. Vallejo, relying on the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the trial conviction in a drug importation case citing, among other things, the judge's exclusion of expert psychological testimony regarding the defendant's language deficits as revealed in his special education history. The Appellate Court ruled that this testimony was relevant to the dispute regarding the confession evidence and related to criminal intent in the alleged offense. This article discusses the Vallejo case in the context of research on competency to confess, the reliability of confession evidence and the relevance of language factors in the assessment of confession evidence. Contrary to the law enforcement allegation, Vallejo asserted that he did not confess at all.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.