Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherSPECIAL ARTICLE

False Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Admissibility

Clarence Watson, Kenneth J. Weiss and Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online June 2010, 38 (2) 174-186;
Clarence Watson
JD, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenneth J. Weiss
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Pouncey
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The confession of a criminal defendant serves as a prosecutor's most compelling piece of evidence during trial. Courts must preserve a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial while upholding the judicial interests of presenting competent and reliable evidence to the jury. When a defendant seeks to challenge the validity of that confession through expert testimony, the prosecution often contests the admissibility of the expert's opinion. Depending on the content and methodology of the expert's opinion, testimony addressing the phenomenon of false confessions may or may not be admissible. This article outlines the scientific and epistemological bases of expert testimony on false confession, notes the obstacles facing its admissibility, and provides guidance to the expert in formulating opinions that will reach the judge or jury. We review the 2006 New Jersey Superior Court decision in State of New Jersey v. George King to illustrate what is involved in the admissibility of false-confession testimony and use the case as a starting point in developing a best-practice approach to working in this area.

  • American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 38 (2)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 38, Issue 2
June 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
False Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Admissibility
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
False Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Admissibility
Clarence Watson, Kenneth J. Weiss, Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2010, 38 (2) 174-186;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
False Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Admissibility
Clarence Watson, Kenneth J. Weiss, Claire Pouncey
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jun 2010, 38 (2) 174-186;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The Phenomenon of False Confessions
    • State of New Jersey v. George King
    • False Confessions: The Elephant in the (Court)room
    • Practical Considerations
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • AAPL Practice Guideline for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense
  • But He Knew It Was Wrong: Evaluating Adolescent Culpability
  • Commentary: Building a Developmental-Ecological Model of Criminal Culpability During Adolescence
Show more SPECIAL ARTICLE

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2025 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law