Law Professors Comment on Lodi Terrorism Case
Professors Diane Marie Amann, Donna Shestowsky, and associate dean Kevin Johnson commented in The Sacramento Bee on the Lodi terrorism case and statements made by the defendants during FBI interrogations. Jurors are in their second week of deliberations in Sacramento federal court.
"For the average juror, the immediate reaction to learning that there has been a confession is that it must be true," said Amann, an expert on international and constitutional law. "The reality is that it's often not true. When people are being questioned by law enforcement, often their desire is to be very cooperative even if that means agreeing they did something wrong."
Johnson, an expert on civil rights and immigration law, said, "Basically, the case rests on the interrogations, and many serious questions have been raised about those interviews." He pointed out the defendants' English may not have been the best, and that they may have felt intimidated or coerced. "Many times, what happens in an interrogation is very unreliable. That is increased if people have limited understanding of language and/or culture."
Separate juries are weighing the cases against the Pakistani American father and son, Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat. Both juries requested to replay the hours of taped interrogations. "That's significant," said Shestowsky, a specialist on jury behavior. "When jurors ask for a piece of evidence to be played a second time, you can bet they are taking their task seriously." she said. "Seeing video clips of the interrogations allows them to see for themselves how reliable any confession is."
April 20, 2006/The Sacramento Bee
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/in_the_news/full_text/view_clip.lasso?id=15008
"For the average juror, the immediate reaction to learning that there has been a confession is that it must be true," said Amann, an expert on international and constitutional law. "The reality is that it's often not true. When people are being questioned by law enforcement, often their desire is to be very cooperative even if that means agreeing they did something wrong."
Johnson, an expert on civil rights and immigration law, said, "Basically, the case rests on the interrogations, and many serious questions have been raised about those interviews." He pointed out the defendants' English may not have been the best, and that they may have felt intimidated or coerced. "Many times, what happens in an interrogation is very unreliable. That is increased if people have limited understanding of language and/or culture."
Separate juries are weighing the cases against the Pakistani American father and son, Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat. Both juries requested to replay the hours of taped interrogations. "That's significant," said Shestowsky, a specialist on jury behavior. "When jurors ask for a piece of evidence to be played a second time, you can bet they are taking their task seriously." she said. "Seeing video clips of the interrogations allows them to see for themselves how reliable any confession is."
April 20, 2006/The Sacramento Bee
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/in_the_news/full_text/view_clip.lasso?id=15008