Speaking freely on reform; Martin Tankleff urges audience of defense attorneys to avoid pitfall of false confessions
BY ALFONSO A. CASTILLO
Newsday
NEW YORK — Martin Tankleff’s criminal case may be done, but his mission is far from over, the former Belle Terre resident said as he shared with an audience of defense attorneys his thoughts on how false confessions - like the one he said landed him in prison for 17 years - could be avoided.
On his second night as an officially free man after having all charges in his parents’ 1988 murders dismissed, Tankleff was the featured speaker Wednesday at a seminar organized by the Criminal Courts Bar Association of Nassau County.
“For 20 years, in my case, there have been two competing versions of what took place in the interrogation room,” said Tankleff, 37, who was convicted in 1990 of murdering his parents, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff.
The main evidence in Tankleff’s case was a confession Tankleff said detectives improperly coerced from him, including by convincing him that his father had wakened from a coma and accused Tankleff of attacking him.
“We’re all standing here and now we feel like we’re on firm ground,” said Tankleff’s attorney, Bruce Barket of Garden City, who also spoke at the seminar. “What I would suggest to you is that when Marty heard that his father said that he did it ... that the earth was no longer firm. You begin to doubt reality.”
According to the Innocence Project, 25 percent of convicted defendants who have been exonerated by DNA evidence made incriminating statements or confessed.
Tankleff’s case was formally dismissed Tuesday, weeks after the state attorney general’s office chose not to seek a new trial. Besides sharing his story with the more than 200 people at the seminar, Tankleff offered suggestions on how to prevent future wrongful convictions.
They included: higher standards for interpreters to make sure non-English speaking defendants understand what their accusers are saying, increased state funding for private investigators for defendants and improved procedures at identification lineups for witnesses.
Tankleff also encouraged defense attorneys to conduct their own investigations rather than rely on police and prosecutors.
“Unfortunately, prosecutors don’t seek justice,” Tankleff said. “They merely seek convictions.”
Tankleff received a standing ovation following his remarks.
He and other speakers agreed that the most important tool in preventing false confessions is videotaped interrogations, which would remove any doubt about what tactics were used to extract a confession.
False confession expert Saul Kassin, professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, said that while the notion that innocent people don’t confess may sound like common sense, false confessions happen more often than most might think.
Kassin said a number of factors, including wearing down suspects over several hours, making them think that they can go home once they confess and “bluffing” them with bogus forensic evidence of their guilt can often cause people to admit to things they didn’t do.
Still, Kassin said when he asks detectives how they can be sure they never extracted a false confession, they often respond, “I don’t interrogate innocent people.”
Separating fact from fiction
False-confession expert Saul Kassin tried to separate facts from myths at a Criminal Courts Bar Association seminar earlier this week:
MYTH: Innocent people don’t confess.
FACT: In addition to proof of false confessions in cases of convicted defendants later exonerated by DNA evidence, researchers have used common detective techniques to persuade subjects to confess to things they didn’t do.
MYTH: Detectives can read body language and eye contact to tell if someone is telling the truth.
FACT: Physical behaviors often associated with lying are often more likely indicators of anxiety associated with being interrogated.
MYTH: Calling a suspect’s bluff with made-up evidence, such as DNA, will force them to tell the truth.
FACT: On the contrary, a suspect who is falsely told that there is forensic evidence in a crime is more likely to falsely confess just to get the ordeal over with.
MYTH: Innocent defendants are protected by their right to remain silent.
FACT: Innocent people are more likely than guilty people to waive that right, reasoning that they have nothing to hide.
Copyright 2008 Newsday, Inc.