People Vs. Thomas Case Study

Exam 1
Critical Case Review: People v. Thomas 2014

Annelise Baker
RIAP 310 Investigative Psychology for Law Enforcement
Dr. Baughman
1 March 201
THE CASE
Wilhelmina Hicks and Adrian Thomas rushed their four-month-old infant, Matthew Hicks, to a Troy, New York hospital after noticing the child’s unresponsiveness on 21 September 2008. The child later transferred to Albany Medical Center’s PICU for treatment for septic shock. Though the child’s physical and medical status indicated septic shock, a doctor contacted child protective authorities, suspecting blunt force trauma head injuries. Authorities then interrogated the child’s parents.
Two hours into the initial police investigation, Thomas expressed suicidal ideation and

was subsequently kept on a psychiatric hold in a local hospital for 15 hours. Thomas then immediately returned to police interrogation. Though the child, Matthew, died shortly after Thomas entered the psychiatric care unit, the interrogating officers continued to inform Thomas the child was alive. Officers insisted Matthew’s survival and Wilhelmina Hick’s freedom depended on Thomas’ confession and admission of guilt in murdering the child. Officers accused Thomas of lying after he initially admitted to dropping Matthew approximately five inches from his crib two weeks prior, claiming the child’s injuries showed extensive abuse. Officers then suggested conflict and resentment between Thomas and Hicks caused Thomas to throw the child onto the crib in frustration, eventually coercing Thomas into re-enacting such a scene using a clipboard. Throughout the interrogation, Thomas repeatedly and consistently maintained his innocence. Officers initially assured Thomas that he could return home once he told the officers what they needed to know, repeatedly assuring him he would not be arrested. Later, officers used emotional appeals to sway Thomas, stating both that Hicks would face an arrest and that Matthew’s survival depended on Thomas’ cooperation, despite the child dying earlier that evening. Nine-and-a-half hours into the ten-hour interrogation, Adrian P. Thomas gave a signed statement and confessed on videotape to the infanticide of Matthew Hicks, stating he threw the child onto the crib on three separate occasions prior to the child’s death.
In court, Thomas’ defense presented evidence from Matthew’s autopsy, showing no signs of cranial fracture. Doctors testified that Matthew died of sepsis from a bacterial infection. Further, the defense argued Thomas gave a coerced confession due to his diminished mental status under the police officers’ aggressive interrogation techniques. The jury viewed Thomas’ recorded confession. The court convicted Adrian P. Thomas of second-degree murder during his 2009 trial. Thomas received a sentence of 25 years to life and a 98-year protection order prohibiting Thomas’ contact with Hicks or their six children. A 2014 New York Court of Appeals trial overturned Thomas’ conviction on the basis of deceptive interrogation methods, physician testimony regarding Matthew’s true cause of death, and a coerced confession. Thomas served six years of the original sentence until the retrial overturned his conviction.
FALSE AND COERCED CONFESSIONS
The People v. Adrian P. Thomas case depicts current deficiencies in the investigative process of law enforcement. False and coerced confessions remain problematic issues for a variety of reasons. Police and law enforcement authorities often face pressure from the victim’s loved ones, the media, and the public to find a suspect, obtain a confession, and close a case quickly and cleanly. However, this pressure often changes the focus of police interrogation during the investigative process from its original truth-seeking intent to one of obtaining a confession. The Innocence Projects notes that approximately 23 percent of the wrongfully convicted cases exonerated with DNA evidence involved false or coerced confessions (See Annex I). Juveniles, the mentally ill, intoxicated individuals, and the developmentally delayed remain especially vulnerable to giving false confessions.
Deception on the part of the interrogators is necessary and legal to a degree.

Magid states that, “Virtually all interrogations, or at least virtually all successful interrogations, involve some deception.” Officers commonly use deception and manipulation during interrogations by informing suspects about the existence of conclusive evidence (in which none exists), promising a reward or lighter sentence for cooperation, using emotional appeals, or omit details. Dr. Richard Leo identified types of false confessions, including voluntary false confession, compliant false confession, and persuaded false confession. The In the People v. Thomas case, Adrian Thomas gave a “persuaded false confession,” in which he came to doubt the reliability of his memories, confessing fully to the specific details of Matthew’s murder as the interrogating officers suggested. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law notes that these types of confessions occur most frequently after “lengthy and psychologically intense interrogations” and that, “once removed from the interrogation environment and its attendant influences and pressures, the persuaded false confessor typically recants his confession.” This is true of the Thomas case, in which Thomas recanted the confession he made during the 10-hour

interrogation.
The ramifications of false confessions include presumption of guilt and impact to jurors, legal ramifications, impact on defendant, strain on resources, and perception of the public. The JAAPL notes that a confession, even if false, conveys a presumption of guilt among law enforcement, the judicial system, jurors, and the public, damaging the defendant’s rights to a fair and quick trial. False confessions change the perception of the case and the defendant often receives harsher treatment throughout the legal process, ending in a harsher sentence. Exonerated individuals often receive compensation for the years suffered due to their wrongful convictions, further limiting depleting resources for law enforcement. Additionally, law enforcement officials frequently face pressure to find the true perpetrator in these cases, limiting time and resources. Finally, the discovery of false and coerced confessions erodes the public’s trust in law enforcement, complicating its missions.
FALSE MEMORIES
The creation, suggestion, and implantation of false memories remains critical the People v.

Thomas case and cases involving false confessions. Studies show that individuals can develop detailed false memories resulting from priming and suggestions during the interview process. Intoxication, mental illness or impairment, repetition of facts or information, priming and suggestion, sleep deprivation, and dehydration can increase an individual’s suggestibility and likelihood to recall a false memory. Interrogators can gaslight suspects, causing the suspect to doubt their memory, coercing them into a false confession.
In the People v. Thomas case, Adrian Thomas remained especially vulnerable to suggestibility due to the lengthy interrogation and his diminished emotional state, evident in his 15-hour psychiatric hold. Lead interrogator Sergeant Adam Mason reportedly instructed Adrian Thomas, “You better find that memory right now, Adrian. You’ve got to find that memory. This is important for your son’s life, man.” Officers first suggested Thomas threw the child in frustration after a conflict with his wife. After getting Thomas to agree to this, the officers used a “foot-in-the-door” strategy to escalate the severity of Thomas’ supposed actions. Further, the interrogators coerced Thomas into re-enacted the suggested scene of Matthew’s death, using a clipboard as a stand-in for the infant, and forcefully slamming the clipboard. Through this physical action, the false

memory appeared more real to Thomas, escalating its implantation and leading to his false confession.