The Influence of Confessions on Guilty Pleas and Plea Discounts

Confessions are the “king” of direct evidence of defendants’ involvement in a crime. Triers of fact are more likely to convict defendants who provide self-incriminatory confessions. This phenomenon extends to plea bargaining, though guilty pleas confound the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases of criminal procedure. Researchers examined adult felony arrest data between 2005 and 2006 from the prosecutors’ offices of two New York counties. They coded the case files for defendants’ statement type and case disposition, weighing the cases to account for differences in the counties’ size and selection criteria. They then conducted chi-square, analysis of variance, logistic, and multiple regression analyses to test their hypotheses. The data fully supported the researchers’ first prediction that defendants who confess—whether partially or fully—are more likely to plead guilty than defendants who do not; 97–100% of confessors, but only 70% of deniers, pled guilty. The Shadow of Trial Theory (that rational defendants base their plea decisions on forecasted trial outcomes) and the high value that triers of fact place on confessions propel this trend. The data both supported and undermined the researchers’ second prediction that the extent of one’s confession influences the value of their plea discount. Partial confessors—viewed as less remorseful—received significantly smaller discounts than other defendants. Deniers received the largest discounts, contradicting the researchers’ expectation of a strong correlation between remorse and leniency.

“[I]t has been suggested that defendants who confessed to the police are treated at least differently, if not more harshly, than those who do not offer incriminating statements. . . . These findings . . . are consistent with the idea that confession increases the probability of conviction, driving both the willingness to accept a plea and the size of the plea discount. Apparently, accepting responsibility for the crimes charged leads to harsher, rather than more lenient, outcome[.]” p. 156