Opinion ID: 1662575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: investigation of officers taking confession

Text: Defendant claims that his confession was false and made as the result of threats and promises made by the deputy sheriff and the parole officer who interrogated him. Although trial counsel did not have investigations done on these two people, he did examine the background and credentials of the two men at the preliminary hearing and at the hearing on the motion to suppress. He stated that he was able to explore any motivation that the men might have had to lie or frame the defendant. A review of the record of the hearing on the motion to suppress and at the trial indicates that trial counsel did an admirable job of cross-examining both the deputy and the parole officer and that a great amount of information as to the men's employment histories, relationship with the defendant, etc., came out on both direct examination and cross-examination. The defendant made no showing that, had an extensive background investigation of these two men been conducted, information would have been made available by which to impeach their testimony regarding the truth of their version of how the confession was obtained.