Article by Angela Beam
This Comment argues that in the context of religious appeals, the totality of the circumstances test used to assess the voluntariness of confessions is too amorphous and leads to unpredictable results to the detriment of criminal defendants. When federal courts address this issue, their outcomes vary wildly.. The same is true in state courts. In a few instances, however, state courts have developed narrower, more deliberate legal standards through which to evaluate this tactic. While these innovations are an improvement, courts must engage in a broader reckoning on the role religion plays in influencing criminal law. The admission of statements induced by religious appeals is antithetical to existing legal safeguards that forbid religious appeals in the courtroom. In the absence of a legal standard that effectively identifies and addresses the coercive effect of religious appeals during custodial interrogation, this tactic will continue, largely unchecked.
To protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, courts must develop a more targeted framework to evaluate the effect of religious appeals. Part II addresses the failings of the totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness and the United States Supreme Court's equivocal approach to evaluating the use of religious appeals during custodial interrogation. Part III explores the parameters of religion's undue influence in coercing confessions. Part IV critiques courts' struggle to identify factors of consequence in assessing religious appeals, highlighting the inconsistencies this has created in both the law and case outcomes. Part V presents alternate legal frameworks for assessing religious appeals during custodial interrogation. Part VI concludes.
About the Author
Angela Beam, J.D. candidate 2023, Tulane University Law School; B.A. 2018, Barnard College, Columbia University. I am extremely lucky to have benefitted from the expertise and edits of three incredible public defenders on this Comment. Thank you to Professor Jancy Hoeffel for her invaluable feedback and encouragement, both while writing this Comment and throughout my time at Tulane; Jimmy Miller for inspiring my interest in this topic and for showing me what it's like to be a kick ass public defender; and Jacob McCarty for his unending guidance and support throughout the writing process and beyond. I would also like to thank my NCE, Garrett Merville, and the members of Tulane Law Review for their thoughtful feedback and hard work in helping to prepare this piece for publication. Finally, thanks to my wonderful family and friends for their love and support.
Citation
97 Tul. L. Rev. 451