If a majority of the Supreme Court justices eventually strike down the death penalty as unconstitutional, Henry Lee McCollum may be an important reason why. Perhaps that will provide some small comfort to him, given the 30-year ordeal he suffered on death row in North Carolina as an innocent man.
McCollum and his brother, Leon Brown, had falsely confessed to the murder of a 11-year-old girl. They were young, intellectually disabled, and they quickly recanted their confessions as having been forced on them by the local police, who used overbearing interrogation tactics. Last year, when DNA testing on evidence that had remained hidden for decades finally exonerated them, the results implicated another man, a serial murderer. Both men have now been pardoned.
In one of the last opinions announced by the Supreme Court this Term, in Glossip v Gross, by a 5-4 margin the Court approved the lethal injection “cocktail” now being used in Oklahoma and other states. What makes the case so important, though, were the defensive remarks by justices in the majority, who perhaps now sense that the days of the death penalty are numbered.
In his remarkable dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that the death penalty is flat-out unconstitutional. Justice Breyer explained just how rare and unusual death sentences are, raising serious concerns under the Eighth Amendment, but also a dilemma: the very delays that prolong litigation in death penalty cases, also result in remarkable number of reversals and outright exonerations of innocent prisoners. And Justice Breyer cited the case of Henry McCollum, noting how in 1994, the Supreme Court denied relief in his case, over the dissent of just one justice.
At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia loudly proclaimed that the death penalty was richly merited in “the case of an 11-year old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!” It took 20 additional years for DNA to prove that McCollum was innocent. No comment from Justice Scalia.
False confession cases such as McCollum’s show it is inevitable that innocent people will be sentenced to death. Death penalty cases often heavily revolve around confession evidence. One half of the 20 cases of individuals exonerated by DNA testing from death row in the US included false confessions. Each of those confessions supposedly included specific details of the crime that only the murderer could have known.
The police claimed that Brown and McCollum had each separately told them in gruesome detail how the victim had been raped and murdered, including how she was asphyxiated by her own panties: we now know that they were innocent and their confession statements were contaminated – meaning that police must have actually told the brothers each of those facts during the interrogation.
Confession Contamination
Such confession contamination has happened in case after case. I have found that almost without exception, the false confessions by DNA exonerees were contaminated. Of 69 false confessions, 65 had been contaminated. Nineteen of these exonerees who had falsely confessed were even convicted despite DNA tests that cleared them at the time of trial – such is the power of confession statements, even false ones.
Indeed, in a 1997 death penalty case, that of Damon Thibodeaux, police did not conduct DNA tests that would have proved his innocence, because they had secured his (false) confession (54 minutes were recorded of his nine-hour interrogation).
At his trial, the prosecutor explained that if “somebody confesses” you do not “need DNA to tell you” who the culprit is. And police still fail to record entire interrogations; videotaping who said what in the interrogation could help to prevent confession contamination.
Death penalty cases continue to centre on confession evidence. In Virginia, I have found that seven of the 20 capital cases that have gone to trial since 2005 have involved confession statements, most of which were undocumented.
Far broader studies of murder cases have found similar figures. Professor John Donohue, in his important study of the Connecticut death penalty, found 59% of death eligible murders since 1973 involved confession statements made to the authorities, and in addition, 43% involved incriminating statements to third parties.
The classic study lead by Professor David Baldus of the Georgia death penalty found that 29% in a sample of 1,066 murder and voluntary manslaughter cases involved self-incriminating statements.
Snitched Up
Why do many capital cases have confessions? Police may be particularly keen to conduct lengthy coercive interrogations in capital cases. Henry McCollum knows this well. And still more death penalty cases involve confession statements supposedly made to informants or jailhouse “snitches” (of the 20 DNA-related exonerations in death penalty cases, ten involved testimony by informants).
Around the world, the most serious murders are often “solved” using interrogations and confessions. In Japan, Iwao Hakamada spent a horrifying 47 years on death row based on a false confession, until DNA tests exonerated him. Indeed, in Japan – and Japan is far from alone in this respect – nearly all criminal cases generally rely on confessions to police.
Interrogations themselves can be improved through safeguards such as videotaping. But the death penalty itself cannot be made foolproof – and indeed, high-profile murder investigations may be even more prone to tragic errors.
This is a problem internationally and in any criminal justice system, since error is inevitable. The death penalty makes those errors irreversible and in the most serious criminal cases. As most states in the US have realised, as most of the globe has realised – and as four US Supreme Court justices seem to have realised: the death penalty is broken and it cannot be fixed.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 9 days to add 500 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.