Also known as: coercions · coercive · coercively
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force that overrides a person's free will. The presence of coercion renders consent invalid and makes resulting acts or statements involuntary.
Claire Campbell received a letter from an attorney urging her to hire him for a personal injury claim while she recovered in the hospital from an accident. The attorney visited her room uninvited and pressed her to sign a retainer despite her expressed desire to rest. The solicitation is prohibited because it involves coercion.
Colin Chambers gave a detailed confession to police after officers found him disoriented at a crime scene. Evidence showed Chambers suffered from severe schizophrenia that prompted the statements without any police threats or pressure. The confession remains admissible because only official compulsion by the state renders a statement involuntary.
Cade Carpenter threatened to harm Cody Callahan's family unless Callahan married him that day. Callahan went through the ceremony only because of the immediate threat. The marriage is subject to attack because one party used coercion to induce the other to enter the relationship.
Craig Caldwell signed a marital settlement agreement after his spouse threatened to publicize damaging personal information unless he accepted unfavorable terms. Caldwell lacked independent legal advice during the signing. The agreement may be set aside because it resulted from coercion.
Christian Coleman prevailed in a libel suit against a newspaper and sought a court order forcing the paper to print a retraction. The newspaper argued that such an order would constitute governmental coercion of speech. The requested remedy raises First Amendment concerns because it would involve state compulsion of expression.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
View caseCypress Technologies employee Christian Coleman was held in a police station for hours and questioned about corporate fraud without receiving Miranda warnings. Officers used psychological pressure and isolation to obtain statements. The statements are inadmissible because the coercive custodial setting required procedural safeguards to protect against compelled self-incrimination.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseThreats of physical force or other serious harm are sufficient to establish coercion. The sources treat both physical compulsion and credible threats as rendering consent or statements involuntary.
Supporting sources
Only official state compulsion renders a confession involuntary. Mental illness or personal lack of free will without police coercion does not trigger suppression.
Supporting sources
A marriage entered because one party used coercion or duress to induce consent is subject to attack. The parties must act of their own free will.
Supporting sources
Yes. A spouse may set aside an agreement reached through coercion even if the agreement is otherwise fair. The challenging spouse must prove the coercive conduct.
Supporting sources
A lawyer may not solicit employment if the solicitation involves coercion, duress, or harassment. The rule protects targets from improper pressure.
Supporting sources
…factors are considered herein as particularly important: (1) the existence of evidence of the use of physical and psychological coercion to obtain confessions, and (2) the necessity for procedural safeguards to protect the privilege against self-incrimination. II We sometimes forget how long it has taken to establish…