• Home
  • Our Team
    • Michael S. Hiller
    • Scott D. Woller
    • Jason E. Zakai
    • Susan M. Fauls
    • Paul M. Kampfer
  • Commercial
    Litigation
    • What Is an Equitable Remedy?
  • Business
    Law
    • Drafting LLC Agreements
    • Let Our New York Employment Attorneys Negotiate Your Executive Employment Agreement
    • Partnership Formation
  • Cannabis Law
    • U.S. Supreme Court Petition
    • Amicus Briefs for Supreme Court Petition
    • Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Appeals Court Decision Is In
  • Land-Use &
    Zoning Law
  • Insurance
    Law
  • Disability
    Insurance Law
    • ERISA Long Term Disability Claims and Appeals Processes: Overview
    • Filing Your Disability Claim
    • Monitoring Your Approved Disability Claim
    • Long-Term Disability (LTD) Denial
    • Appealing Your Denied Disability Claim
    • Reasons for Disability Denial
    • ERISA Disability Lawsuits: Standards of Review
    • The Dangers of Social Media Interaction while Disabled
    • Proving Disability Based on Chronic Pain
    • COVID Long Haulers and Disability Insurance Claims
    • Disability Claims FAQs
  • Employment
    Law
  • Success
    Stories
  • Articles
  • Blog
    • TBTLegal
    • HPC Blog
  • Contact
Menu navimg
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Michael S. Hiller
    • Scott D. Woller
    • Jason E. Zakai
    • Susan M. Fauls
    • Paul M. Kampfer
  • Commercial
    Litigation
    • What Is an Equitable Remedy?
  • Business
    Law
    • Drafting LLC Agreements
    • Let Our New York Employment Attorneys Negotiate Your Executive Employment Agreement
    • Partnership Formation
  • Cannabis Law
    • U.S. Supreme Court Petition
    • Amicus Briefs for Supreme Court Petition
    • Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Appeals Court Decision Is In
  • Land-Use &
    Zoning Law
  • Insurance
    Law
  • Disability
    Insurance Law
    • ERISA Long Term Disability Claims and Appeals Processes: Overview
    • Filing Your Disability Claim
    • Monitoring Your Approved Disability Claim
    • Long-Term Disability (LTD) Denial
    • Appealing Your Denied Disability Claim
    • Reasons for Disability Denial
    • ERISA Disability Lawsuits: Standards of Review
    • The Dangers of Social Media Interaction while Disabled
    • Proving Disability Based on Chronic Pain
    • COVID Long Haulers and Disability Insurance Claims
    • Disability Claims FAQs
  • Employment
    Law
  • Success
    Stories
  • Articles
  • Blog
    • TBTLegal
    • HPC Blog
  • Contact
Logo
Logo
(212) 319-4000
Email Us Directly
Close

Contact Us Today!

I have read theThe information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.disclaimer.
captcha

Home >> Blog>> Coerced Confessions Unconstitutional: Florida v. Chambers (1940)

Blog

12
Feb

Coerced Confessions Unconstitutional: Florida v. Chambers (1940)

Seventy-five (75) years ago today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Chambers that confessions obtained through coercion are inadmissible at trial. The circumstances of the coercion in Chambers weren’t especially brutal; there was no evidence of beatings, threats, deprivation of food or water, water-boarding or other misconduct which is often associated with confessions brought about by torture; rather, the defendants were held without a lawyer for five days and subjected to repeated and continuing questioning (all day, every day, and one full night) by as many as 10 police officers at a time, reflecting an interrogation that crossed the line into browbeating and intimidation.

What is the status of Chambers today? It remains good law. Neither the police nor any other branch of government is entitled to coerce a confession from a suspect. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, coerced confessions are inadmissible. In 2009, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Bacha v. Obama that confessions obtained by torture are inadmissible, even if the misconduct occurred outside the continental United States.

All of this raises an interesting issue: Suppose the police know, not on the basis of a mere hunch, but upon concrete, undeniable evidence, that a suspect has planned a massive, imminent terrorist attack in the United States, but the date, time and location remain unknown. Should the police or any other law enforcement official be permitted to use coercion? Or how about coercion but not torture? And suppose the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” would it be appropriate to use the information acquired during coercive questioning during a subsequent criminal trial? Or should the law be that, because coercion and torture are so horrific, the evidence could be used only in order to save lives, but not to convict?

Archives

  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • August 2014

Email Us Today !

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does NOT establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
captcha

connect with us

Hiller, PC 641 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022

Phone: (212) 319-4000 Fax: (212) 753-4530

View Map

Areas Served:

Hiller, PC serves individuals, community groups, and businesses throughout the New York metropolitan area, including New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island, and in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Kings counties. We also represent policyholders in insurance matters nationwide.

Hiller, PC © Copyright 2023   |   Disclaimer