Miller v. Fenton
796 F.2d 598 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A confession is voluntary and admissible if, under the totality of the circumstances, the suspect's will was not overborne by police coercion. The use of psychological tactics during an interrogation, such as feigning sympathy, making misrepresentations of fact, or offering implied promises, does not automatically render a confession involuntary.
Facts:
- On August 13, 1973, seventeen-year-old Deborah Margolin was murdered after a stranger approached her home in a distinctive old white car and told her a heifer was loose.
- Margolin's brothers provided police with a description of the man and the car, which an officer recognized as matching Frank Miller, who lived nearby and had a criminal record.
- Police located Miller at his workplace that evening and he voluntarily accompanied them to the police barracks for questioning.
- At the barracks, Detective Boyce interrogated Miller for approximately one hour.
- During the interrogation, Boyce employed a friendly tone, repeatedly expressed sympathy, and falsely told Miller that the victim was still alive before later announcing she had just died.
- Boyce suggested Miller was not a criminal but was mentally ill, assuring him that he needed help, not punishment, and that Boyce would help him get it.
- After approximately one hour of interrogation, Miller confessed to the murder.
- Immediately following his confession, Miller collapsed into a state of shock and had to be transported to a hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Miller was indicted for first-degree murder in a New Jersey state trial court.
- The trial court denied Miller's pretrial motion to suppress his confession as involuntary.
- Following a jury trial where the confession was admitted into evidence, Miller was convicted.
- Miller, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which reversed the conviction, finding the confession involuntary.
- The State of New Jersey, as appellant, appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the conviction.
- Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which was denied.
- Miller, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the denial, holding that the state court's finding of voluntariness was a factual finding entitled to deference.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the Third Circuit, and held that voluntariness is a legal question requiring independent federal review.
- The case was remanded to the Third Circuit to conduct a plenary review of the voluntariness issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's use of psychological tactics—including expressing sympathy, lying about the time of the victim's death, and making implied promises of psychiatric help rather than punishment—render a suspect's subsequent confession involuntary under the Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Becker, Circuit Judge.
No. A police officer's use of psychological tactics does not render a confession involuntary if the suspect's will was not overborne under the totality of the circumstances. The court must evaluate the specifics of the police conduct against the characteristics of the accused. Here, Miller was a mature adult of normal intelligence with prior experience in the criminal justice system, making him more resistant to coercion. The interrogation was relatively short, and while Detective Boyce used deceptive tactics, such as feigning sympathy, lying about the victim's death, and making implied promises of help, these ploys are permissible interrogation techniques so long as they do not deprive the suspect of the ability to make an autonomous decision. Miller's own guarded responses indicated he understood the adversarial nature of the interrogation and was not tricked into a mistaken belief of leniency. Therefore, his confession was a product of his own unconstrained will.
Dissenting - Gibbons, Circuit Judge,
Yes. The confession was involuntary because it was the product of relentless psychological coercion designed solely to secure a confession, not to investigate a crime. The detective employed a cumulative strategy of lies, misrepresentations about the evidence, and explicit and implied promises of psychiatric help instead of punishment. Under the rule of Bram v. United States, a confession obtained by any direct or implied promise, however slight, is inadmissible. The majority ignores the inherently coercive setting, the detective's deceptive manipulation, and the most telling evidence that Miller's will was overborne: his complete physical and mental collapse immediately after confessing. The police conduct was fundamentally at odds with constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'totality of the circumstances' test for the voluntariness of confessions obtained through psychological coercion. The court's decision establishes that deceptive interrogation tactics, including lies and false promises of sympathy or help, are not per se unconstitutional. It sets a precedent that the central inquiry is the actual effect of these tactics on the specific suspect's will, weighing police pressure against the suspect's individual power of resistance (e.g., age, intelligence, experience). This ruling provides law enforcement with latitude to use psychological persuasion, while tasking courts with making nuanced, fact-specific judgments about whether a suspect's will was truly overborne.
Unlock the full brief for Miller v. Fenton