This is a particularly nasty case, not simply because it involved the sexual molestation of a child but because the people charged to investigate it fabricated a confession to something even more serious.
You can read the full judgment here, but basically this was a case of verballing. If you are unfamiliar with this shoddy practice, you will find a detailed discussion of it from a UK persective in this pamphlet which I published in 2003. (Don’t ask me about the pseudonym, but there was a valid reason for it).
Overall, the office of public defender has a bad reputation in the United States, but the lawyer appointed to defend Velasco–Palacios here, Ernest Hinman, showed exceptional integrity and tenacity.
In the United States, police officers are permitted to lie to suspects, and frequently do. This privilege is not reciprocated, and lying to a police officer is usually a criminal offence. Lying to a suspect may well induce him to confess, but such a confession may lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. Most suspects are vulnerable to a degree, certainly if accused of a serious crime, some are of low intelligence or simply suggestible. One is entitled to ask how many innocent people – men and women – have been convicted of heinous crimes because they have been induced to confess by tainted evidence or police lies. Including in sex cases.
Also worthy of note is that the Attorney General in this case was Kamala Harris, who at the time of writing – January 2018 – is being touted in some quarters as a future presidential candidate. God help America if she is.
Back To False Rape Timeline