Opinion ID: 1059169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony on False Confessions

Text: Jackson argues in his fourteenth assignment of error that the trial court incorrectly barred Jackson from asking his expert witness, Dr. Steven C. Ganderson, a hypothetical question about false confessions. [4] While the trial court was willing to permit Dr. Ganderson to testify generally regarding circumstances that could lead to false confessions, it forbade Dr. Ganderson from testifying about the truth or falsity of Jackson's statement. We find no error in the trial court's ruling. The physical and psychological environment surrounding a confession can be very relevant in determining whether a confession is reliable, and expert witnesses may testify to a witness's or defendant's mental disorder and the hypothetical effect of that disorder. Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 187, 557 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2002). Expert witnesses may not, however, render an opinion on the defendant's veracity or reliability of a confession because whether a confession is reliable is a matter in the jury's exclusive province. Id. During voir dire, the trial court accepted Dr. Ganderson as an expert on psychology and sexual-psychological issues. Jackson elicited testimony from the doctor on the factors that contribute to transference, a phenomenon in which a subject becomes more prone to suggestion and may say things which are untrue in an attempt to gain approval from an authority figure. Dr. Ganderson also testified about antecedents and objective goals of a defendant that could affect the reliability of a defendant's statements. While the trial court permitted this questioning, it sustained the Commonwealth's objection when Dr. Ganderson questioned the veracity of Jackson's statement based on transference theory. The trial court, relying on our decision in Pritchett, ruled that Dr. Ganderson could testify regarding the circumstances surrounding Jackson's confession but not about its truth: Now, I still think in terms out of what he can't say, that's a false confession. I think the jury still has to make those kinds of conclusions. Those are factual conclusions, but he can testify about the surroundings and what he believes the impact has on this defendant with his mental capacity as well as the surroundings of the circumstances out of which the confession was taken. There is no error in this holding.