American lower courts are presently conflicted over whether foreign coerced confessions are admissible under the Due Process Clause. The confusion can be traced largely to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Colorado v. Connelly which justified the exclusion of involuntary confessions only in the deterrence of wrongful police action. This Note offers a solution to the current circuit split by examining the justifications foreign jurisdictions and international courts offer to explain the exclusion of coerced confessions.
A review of international reasoning indicates that a strong majority of courts exclude coerced confessions out of a protest against admitting coerced evidence into judicial proceedings. This Note argues that this approach would more fully protect the values codified in the Due Process Clause.