The Legal Updates for Spring 2011 include the following cases:

• No Federal due process requirement to record the interrogation
• Police must tell suspect undergoing custodial interrogation when his attorney arrives
• Court rejects the testimony of expert witness Dr. John DiBacco on the issue of coercive interrogation techniques
• Suspect asks for an attorney - the interrogation stops - suspect says shortly thereafter he wants to talk without an attorney
• Court rejects the argument made by expert psychologist Dr. Mark Vigen that the defendant was susceptible to police manipulation
• Court upholds confession after suspect told he has two choices - cooperate and we will talk to the DA, don't cooperate and we will not talk to the DA
• The value of recording interrogations
• Police cannot promise drug treatment in lieu of incarceration
• A confession does not constitute a per se bar to establishing a prima facie case demonstrating that DNA testing would establish actual innocence
• The meaning of interrogation - can you tell a suspect he has been implicated in the crime after he has asked for an attorney?
• California Court of Appeals finds that "Dr. Leo's proffered testimony, presented in a vacuum, created a substantial danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury"
• Does "hope of benefit" nullify a confession?
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Sol Fulero on false confession issues
• Court finds confession inadmissible due to interrogator threats and promise