Expert Psychological Testimony Regarding Disputed Confession Evidence in Federal Courts: United States v. Vallejo

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.