BY CODY LYON-
On April 19, 1989, joggers, cyclists and other New Yorkers sought refuge from the stress of urban life in the city's backyard,
Central Park. But, as the night sky grew dark, a series of menacing incidents rattled the calm of an otherwise beautiful spring
evening.
Reports of random violence began to trickle in to the Central Park precinct of the New York City Police Department.
But, it was a chilling report from the wee hours of the morning that would shatter the tranquility of Central Park and
divide an entire city.
At around 1:30 am a late night runner discovered a severely beaten woman, lying in a puddle of mud on a wooded footpath
in the northern tier of the park. The young employee of a downtown bank, who was also an accomplished musician, was close
to death. Police say she had been repeatedly raped and her skull was crushed with what appeared to be a rock or brick.
The victim was 29 years old Patricia Meili. At the time, her identity hidden, she became known to New York City residents
as simply the Central Park Jogger. When details of her attack became public, tensions were soon boiling as much of the city
found itself enraged over the senseless and vicious nature of the violent attack. To many , the senseless crime symbolized
what they saw as an out of control city.
According to blaring tabloid headlines, five Black and Latin teenaged boys had been accused of gang raping and then beating
Meili's head and body to a bloody pulp with a rock. Allegedly, the teenagers had engaged in marauding behavior called "wilding"
during the hours before the attack on Meili. Police revealed videotaped confessions that captured the young men offering details
of the crime during an interrogation session at a police station in the park.
The press ran with the story, showing pictures of the young men under headlines like "wilding pack of teens" in Central
Park. The resulting collective racial, class and fright based tensions brought chills to the city in spring.
But,
in the end, it appears that in the rush to convict, law enforcement officials used inappropriate interrogation techniques
that led to what are called coerced confession apparently obtained from each of the accused in the Central Park Jogger case.
It would take years before the shameful second tragedy of the Central Park case would play out, under less media scrutiny
than the highly publicized horror of that night in Spring.
The
Central Park Jogger case is just one example of what some say has proven over the years to be a significant national problem.
There are estimates saying that improperly obtained confessions could number in the hundreds
or even thousands, splashing an ugly stain on a fundamental principal of the American Justice system.
"Coerced confessions wholly undermine the criminal justice system and violate the constitutional rights of defendants"
according to Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
There are a number of widely known missteps by law enforcement where an alleged perpetrator's rights may be violated,
resulting in what could be seen as a technically coerced confession.
The most common misstep is a violation of the Miranda law, when police officers do not inform the accused of his right
to attorney, or the right to silence.
The 1966 Miranda law advises suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda is meant to protect a suspect from self-incrimination
upon being arrested, and make sure that any statements made during interrogation are indeed voluntary.
But what goes on behind closed doors in interrogation rooms is more complex, private and less open to scrutiny by observers.
Interrogation rooms are intimidating places where suspects are coaxed to talk. But, on rare occasions, in order to get a suspect
to say what the interrogator needs to indict, misleading tricks, lies or other techniques often enter the picture that often
pose problems for prosecutors later in court if effectively challenged. Unless the interrogation sessions are filmed, there
is no tangible record to verify what takes place during what are sometimes questionable interrogations. And, because of
no set guidelines as to when the cameras start rolling, there is no way to know what was said, or even rehearsed before a
confession is made.
In a 2002 letter to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the NYCLU urged that the NYPD begin taping all video
interrogations from start to finish. The letter alleged that in several high profile cases, including the Central Park Jogger
case, law enforcement had obtained inappropriate confessions. In a few cases, confessions were in fact later proven to be
false. Often in such cases, a suspect is tricked into believing that that there is existing evidence of guilt, or perhaps
the suspect is told that confession will result in a lighter sentence in court .
With the advent of DNA evidence, a new factor has come into play and a number of convictions, some allegedly obtained coerced
confessions have been overturned.
Nationwide, around 180 inmates have been released in recent years, thanks to the introduction DNA evidence, evidence
that has the ability to draw or erase actual physical connections between a suspect and a crime scene or victim.
Speaking from his home in Grahm, North Carolina, Alamance County District Attorney Robert Johnson, a 31 year veteran of
the criminal justice system cautions that the number of coerced confessions are fairly small when compared with the overall
number of successful criminal convictions obtained in part through law enforcement interrogations.
But he notes that one wrongful conviction obtained through a coerced conviction, is one to many.
In addition, Johnson stressed that in seeking a conviction, a confession should be just one element, sort of the icing
on the cake of evidence needed to convict. In most cases, physical evidence is essential in a court of law.
Most legal experts agree, that without physical evidence, any conviction is open for doubt.
"Evidence is essential" said Pamela Bucy, a Professor of Law at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
Bucy also says that coercion is usually not necessary during interrogations because guilty suspects usually start to talk
anyway.
In North Carolina, DA Johnson has also seen firsthand the importance of obtaining a confession from one suspect, in order
to fully exonerate a wrongfully convicted man who had served a number of years in jail for a crime, it turned out, he did
not commit.
In 1984, Ronald Cotton had been convicted of the rape of Jennifer Thompson, after she had mistakenly identified him as
her attacker. Cotton served the next ten years in a North Carolina Prison. But, Police had long suspected another man, Bobby
Poole, by then, serving time for a similar crime. Then, in 1995, Police obtained DNA samples that provided evidence linking
Poole, not Cotton to the crime.
DA Johnson sent his detectives to interview Poole in prison.
"During the first hour of interrogation, one of my detectives came out and said that he'd made an incriminating statement"
recalled Johnson.
But Johnson said he wanted to be sure. He told the person questioning Poole that he needed specific details of the crime
scene directly from Poole.
"I told him that's not good enough, go back in there and get clothing and location, all details" said Johnson.
The point being "we didn't just want someone confessing to this crime, we wanted necessary evidence, the detailed information
that only Poole would have known about" noted Johnson in his quest for a solid case and exoneration.
Eventually the DNA evidence, as well as Poole's detailed admission proved that Ronald Cotton was not the man who had raped
Jennifer Thompson, thus paving the way for Cotton's exoneration.
Johnson says that that although they felt sure of Cotton's innocence once they had the DNA evidence, they also needed the
confession from Poole to fully secure Cotton's freedom. But, such a full and forthcoming admission of guilt from Poole, a
confession that would be fully admissible and believable in a court of law, took patience and perseverance.
Johnson says interrogators must be careful in their attempts to get the details like those he needed to convict the correct
suspect in the North Carolina case. He says that often right after a particularly heinous crime, there is a rush or sense
of urgency in the need to convict, that may lead interrogators to engage in the inappropriate tactics involved in a forced
coercion. They must also not employ tactics that might be seen as inhumane.
"When interrogating someone, an officer has to be mindful, and not deny food, drink, water support and respite" said Johnson.
Defense attorneys often use charges of coercion as a tactic in court.
Johnson said that, often a defense attorney will ask for a suppression of a statement. In other words, a suspect wants
to “recount or deny” what was said during a confession. But proving that a statement was coerced involves
meeting the satisfaction of the court, meeting a burden of proof which is challenging at best.
Johnson says that most false confessions usually involve matters of illness, mental incapacity, injury and fear beyond
the trauma of being in an interrogation room.
A complaint filed by the original Central Park Jogger suspects, charges that maximization techniques were the tools used
by interrogators that night back in the spring of 1989.
The Central Park Jogger crime occurred in a time before the seeds of DNA evidence had taken root as tools of evidence
in the United States judicial system. And,as is often the case in such high profile cases, New York Law Enforcement authorities
needed a suspect to appease the publics outrage over the brutality of the incident. In the case of the Central Park Jogger,
the original group of suspects easily fit the psyche of the tabloids, as well as a traumatized and evidently racially divided
city.
But, as history has shown, in its thirst to obtain a shut and close case, justice was in fact denied on three fronts.
In the May 2002, another man, Matias Reyes, a serial rapist and convicted murderer, confessed to the horrific attack on
Trisha Meili back in April 1989. Later, DNA evidence positively linked Reyes to the crime.
That same year, after serving 5 to 13 years each, the five men, now ranging in age from 28 to 30, saw a judge dismiss
the charges that had vilified them before an entire city. The five had spent a large portion of there young lives in prison
based on a confession and no forensic evidence.
According to a $50 million complaint against the New York City Police Department and the New York DA's office, charged
that the confessions that had sent the the five then-teenagers to jail was improperly coerced.
The complaint says that the recorded statement used to convict the young men and stoke the flames of the media, was in
fact, rehearsed. The complaint says that the police exploited young age of the suspects and the lack of experience they and
their parents had with the criminal justice system. The interrogation methods allegedly included coercion, isolation, intimidation,
manipulation, suggestiveness, deceit, false promises, sleep deprivation, actively shaping the statements contents before they
were formerly given, telling the plaintiffs to put their written statements and with holding certain information from suspects
and family members about the true intent behind the questioning.
The New York District Attorney's office and the lawyers bringing the case could not comment on the closed case.
Questions were raised about New York City's police culture and how widespread similar techniques were in other cases.
As North Carolina DA Johnson cautions,an effective and fair interrogator must be properly trained and very disciplined.
Johnson says that our Adversarial judicial system has become so antagonistic which has led to adrenalin driven behaviors
throughout the legal system. But, he also blames public expectations of law enforcement that have risen beyond reality, that
there is great deal of pressure to solve a crime quickly, as if real life mirrors the rapidity in crime solving that takes
place in one hour television programs like CSI.
Johnson said that unfortunately, the expectations often put much greater pressure on police to obtain confessions in crimes
and that can contribute to a way of thinking that has the potential to lead to police miscondut. Ultimately, the quest for
that sort instant gratification can lead to a flawed legal system that is meant to dispense justice, certainly not a conviction
at any cost.
