Michigan v. Warner

Brief Filed: 2/23
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2024

Read full-text amicus brief (PDF, 353KB)opens in new window

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Warner’s motion to appoint an expert in false confessions.

False Confessions

In 2016, Damon Warner was interrogated multiple times by law enforcement officers regarding allegations that he had sexually assaulted his stepdaughter in December of 2015. Warner ultimately confessed to the allegations.

Warner was arrested and charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct (“CSC”). Prior to trial, Warner moved the trial court to appoint a false confessions expert to address attributes associated with false confessions. Warner alleged that the testimony was relevant because officers interrogated him for approximately six hours and made promises of leniency and emotional threats to induce a confession. After a hearing, the trial court denied Warner’s motion.

Warner was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 40 years in prison for first degree CSC. Warner appealed, and on October 7, 2021 the Court of appeals affirmed his conviction.

APA’s brief provides research on how psychologically coercive interrogation techniques result in an increased likelihood of eliciting a false confession. The brief also demonstrates the value of psychological science in legal decision-making by highlighting the integrity and legitimacy of psychological research in the area of false confessions and illustrating that psychology is a well-founded scientific discipline.

On July 11, 2024, by a 5-2 vote, the court (reversing the court of appeals) held that where the truth or falsity of a confession is a central issue at trial, it is impermissible to deny an indigent defendant funding to support necessary expert assistance on false confessions if such a denial prevents the defendant from having an adequate opportunity to present his claim of falsity fairly. The court further held that the defendant here had made the necessary showing that a false-confession expert would assist his defense and that denying him funding for the expert would render the trial fundamentally unfair. The court did not cite our amicus brief, but its holding and reasoning are fully consistent with the positions we advanced.