Assassin And Sukel Case Summary

Kassin and Sukel (1997) considered as an exemplary the verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), and performed two studies to determine whether a coerced confession which is admitted erroneously can be considered as "harmless error" or not. Participants- jurors read records of a murder trial having a confession which was elicited either in low or high pressure interrogation, and which was ruled admissible or inadmissible by the judge. A no-confession group as a control was also considered. As prescribed by law, jurors observed that high-pressure confession was less voluntary and reported that it had less influence on judges’ decisions. However, as for the verdicts, confession increased the conviction rate. On account of these results Kassin and Sukel (1997) suggested that appellate courts should be cautious in applying the harmless error rule to the admission of forced or coerced confessions and they should take care that coerced

Jurors received one of five criminal trial cases titled State vs. Voluntariness was judged and it was perceived that 43% jurors perceived confession as voluntary. Self-reported influence was also observed and it was concluded that 34 % of the jurors admitted that confession had impact on their verdicts. Overall conviction rate was 23 %.

In the second experiment 80 students participated who were randomly assigned to one of five confession- high pressure, low pressure, admissible, inadmissible and no confession- group. Voluntariness was judged and it was perceived that overall 52% jurors perceived confession as voluntary. Self-reported influence was also observed and it was concluded that 48 % of the jurors admitted that confession had an impact on their verdicts. Overall, conviction rate was 45% as compared to 23% of the previous