Debra Milke, who spent 23 years in an Arizona prison for the murder of her young son, was out on bond Friday to await a new trial. Her case revives questions about confessions to police.
The legitimacy of confessions is at the heart of a case of an Arizona woman convicted 23 years ago in the murder of her young son – and of a judge's decision this week to allow her to go free from prison until she can be retried for the murder, possibly without the confession as evidence.
A federal appeals court last spring overturned the conviction of Debra Milke, on grounds that the sole detective who heard her confession, in a closed interrogation room, had lied under oath in other cases and about other confessions – and that his track record should have been disclosed to her defense team during trial. Her alleged confession was not recorded.
Ms. Milke is not yet exonerated – the state plans to retry her on the same murder charges this fall. But her lawyers have already filed a motion to exclude the purported confession from being admitted as evidence.
The whole practice of obtaining confessions has received some black eyes in recent years, as convictions of various kinds – murder, sexual assault, robberies, and so forth – have been overturned when confessions were later found to be false or coerced. Of all exonerations involving false confessions between 1989 and 2012, the majority came in homicide cases, reports the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint collaboration between the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law.
Page 1 of 4