Coerced Confessions can be Subject to New Trial Last month, an appeals court determined that a New Jersey trial

judge had made an error in choosing not to conduct a hearing to determine whether the defendant had made his confession under duress or voluntarily. The defendant, R.P., was accused of having an ongoing sexual relationship with his teenage daughter, and sentenced to 16 years in prison. But family lawyers in New Jersey report that the man may be getting a new trial, based on the appellate courts ruling, if his confession is determined to be the product of an inherently coercive situation. R.P. was convicted in 2009, after his wife, known as Vera in the court documents, began to suspect that he was involved in a sexual relationship with Jane, the couples 17-yearold daughter. Vera planted recording devices in the master bedroom, and called the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) after the recordings picked up sexually explicit interactions between the two. She also told police in the ensuing investigation that the voices on the tape belonged to R.P. and Jane. In a separate interview, Jane told police that the relationship with her father had begun earlier that year, and in return for sexual activities, she received several privileges, such as being able to date, use the familys car, and extend her curfew. R.P. originally denied any improper relationship with Jane, but later admitted that the two had engaged in sexual activity, although no intercourse, by mutual agreement, in an 8-minute interview with authorities. The recorded confession, along with a transcript, was admitted into evidence as his trial. At his trial, R.P. testified on his own behalf, and claimed that his previous confession had been coerced, the result of spending several hours at the police station, where several officers yelled at him, he did not understand their comments, and he thought he was acting to protect his daughter. His wife also changed her statement to police, saying that she had realized the voices on the explicit recording belonged to visiting relatives. Despite this, R.P. was charged with four counts of second-degree sexual assault, one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, and one count of second-degree child endangerment. The trial judge sentenced him to two consecutive 8-year sentences. According to Rule of Evidence 104, regarding preliminary questions, a judge must conduct a hearing so that the jury cannot hear it if the hearing will determine the credibility of a defendants confession. The appellate court determined that, in this case, R.P.s confession was allegedly made under circumstances of extreme stress and coercion, leading to a potentially forced confession that needs further review. At New Jersey law firm Helmer, Conley, and Kasselman, PA, our family lawyers represent anyone who has been charged with crimes against children or family members. We also work to ensure that our clients receive a fair trial according to state laws. If you need a second opinion on your trials proceedings or outcome in family court, contact an HCK lawyer for a free, no-strings consultation today.