- Associated Press - Tuesday, March 11, 2014

BOSTON (AP) - The double-murder conviction of a Greenfield man who tried unsuccessfully to call an expert to testify on the phenomenon of false confessions was upheld by Massachusetts’ highest court on Tuesday, but the court indicated that such testimony might be allowed under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Robin Anthony Hoose’s first-degree murder convictions in the 2007 stabbing deaths of Irene Pierce, 45, of Turners Falls, and Frank Blanchard, 33, of Springfield. Prosecutors said Hoose had invited the couple to stay at his apartment, but flew into a rage and killed them after he discovered his watch and ring were missing.

Hoose argued in his appeal that the judge at his trial should have granted his motion to suppress his statements to police and should have allowed an expert to testify about studies on false confessions.

Hoose said his statements to police were not made voluntarily because he was experiencing physical and emotional trauma from self-inflicted injuries.

He also argued that his trial judge should have rejected a request from prosecutors to bar the testimony of Allison Redlich, a criminal justice professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York, who has published several studies on confessions and police interrogation techniques.

Hoose’s lawyers said Redlich’s testimony would be limited to her describing certain factors related to interrogation methods and the characteristics of individual suspects that have been identified as commonly occurring among false confessions. But prosecutors successfully argued that Redlich’s testimony did not meet the scientific standard necessary to be presented to a jury.

The Supreme Judicial Court rejected Hoose’s arguments and declined to vacate or reduce his convictions to second-degree murder.

The court found that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by excluding the expert on false confessions because the judge may have concluded that the testimony was not relevant and would have distracted or confused the jury. But the SJC indicated it is open to the idea of allowing such testimony under certain circumstances.

“We do acknowledge, however, that the phenomenon of false confessions is a growing area of psychological and social science research, and we are mindful that false confessions have been demonstrated to occur even in the context of serious crimes, including murder,” Justice Francis Spina wrote for the court in the unanimous ruling.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Townsend said the circumstances of Hoose’s statements to police did not justify expert testimony on false confessions.

After the killings, Hoose made a call from the hospital to a police detective he knew from being a confidential informant on drug cases. He told the detective, “There are two dead bodies in my house” and admitted killing two people, according to a summary of the case included in the SJC’s decision.

After he was discharged from the hospital, he met with three police officers and initially said he did not remember what happened. Later, he provided a detailed statement in which he admitted killing Pierce and Blanchard.

“If there is a case that will permit false confessions testimony, it’s not this one. It would have to be something with more facts that would actually support the application of the science,” Townsend said.

Hoose’s appellate lawyer did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide