Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors?

  title={Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors?},
  author={Danielle Wallace and Saul M Kassin},
  journal={Law and human behavior},
  volume={36 2},
In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for appellate judges to conduct a harmless error analysis of erroneously admitted, coerced confessions. In this study, 132 judges from three states read a murder case summary, evaluated the defendant's guilt, assessed the voluntariness of his confession, and responded to implicit and explicit measures of harmless error. Results indicated that judges found a high-pressure confession to be coerced and hence improperly… CONTINUE READING

From This Paper

Figures and tables from this paper.


Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 20 references

The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process

  • L. Ross
  • Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
  • 1977
Highly Influential
2 Excerpts

The substance of false confessions

  • B L.
  • Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
  • 2010
1 Excerpt

False confessions: A content analysis

  • S. Appleby, L. Hasel, A. Shlosberg, S. Kassin
  • 2009

On the doctrine of harmless error : Myths and misconceptions

  • S. M. Kassin
  • 2009
3 Excerpts

On the doctrine of harmless error: Myths and misconceptions. Division 41 Presidential Address

  • S. M. Kassin
  • 2009
3 Excerpts

On the presumption

  • L. E. Hasel, S. M. Kassin
  • 2009
1 Excerpt

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…