Phillipos v. United States

Brief Filed: 5/17
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Year of Decision: 2017

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 581KB)

At issue before the court is admissibility of expert testimony on the body of research addressing risk factors for false confessions.

False Confessions

On Oct. 28, 2014, Robel Phillipos was convicted on two counts of making false statements to federal authorities in the weeks following the Boston Marathon bombing. The bombing occurred on April 15, 2013. The statements related to Phillipos's possible participation, three days later, in the removal and disposal of a backpack thought to contain evidence related to the attack from the college dormitory room of one of the bombing suspects and a friend of the defendant's at college. Phillipos was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Phillipos appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal covered a number of asserted mistakes by the trial court, including the ruling that peremptorily denied the proffered expert testimony. The three-judge Court of Appeals panel affirmed the lower court ruling, specifically citing the language regarding “faux science” to preclude admission of the expert testimony on false confession. Mr. Phillipos has now petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing including on the issue of exclusion of this testimony.

The APA’s amicus brief builds on earlier amicus briefs regarding the research on false confessions.

On Aug. 3, 2017, the First Circuit denied rehearing en banc (over the dissent of one judge) but at the same time the panel granted rehearing to the extent of making the very helpful clarification that its unfavorable comments were about the particular expert in the case and not about the field or researchers generally. The defendant then sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court which the court denied on Jan. 8 of this year. (APA was not involved at that stage.)