Do you have enough to read, well here’s more.
In sum, the Miranda decision has, at best, had little or no impact on the risks of false confession and wrongful conviction. At worst, the influence of police on Miranda procedures and subsequent litigation has actually made things worse for defendants.
Leo & Cutler, False Confessions in the Twenty-First Century. The Champion magazine, (2016) Forthcoming, Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2016-15.
Although the Miranda decision changed police behavior insofar as they routinely provide at least a nominal Miranda warning to suspects, police have strategically adapted their warning practices so that they do not inhibit self-incrimination by suspects. Thus, Miranda has done little to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions. This article suggests ways that criminal defense attorneys can use existing studies about the causes of false confessions to mount false confession defenses. Studies have repeatedly shown that if a false confession is introduced into evidence at trial — even if it is obtained under questionable conditions, supported by no independent evidence, contradicted by substantial evidence, and ultimately proven false — it is highly likely to lead to a wrongful conviction. For this reason, it is incumbent upon criminal defense attorneys to be well-versed in the social science research on interrogation and confession in order to aggressively and effectively litigate false confession cases.
David Alan Sklansky, The Nature and Function of Prosecutorial Power. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 117, No. 2, Forthcoming, Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2770815.