McCarthy v. Hernandez, Docket No. 25-748
Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube
A man convicted of killing a child in one of America's most famous missing-person cases will stay in prison after the Supreme Court sided with prosecutors over concerns about his confession. The decision matters far beyond this one case. It sets limits on when federal courts can step in to fix problems in state trials, and it shows how confessions obtained through police interrogation can be harder to challenge than many people realize.
The Case: A Decades-Old Crime and Multiple Confessions
Pedro Hernandez was convicted in New York for the 1979 kidnapping and murder of six-year-old Etan Patz, whose disappearance captivated the nation and helped launch the modern missing-children movement. In 2012, police questioned Hernandez without first telling him his rights, and he confessed. After officers then read him his Miranda rights (the warning that tells suspects they can stay silent and have a lawyer), he waived those rights and confessed again on video. He went on to confess multiple times to family members and psychiatrists.
At trial, the jury asked the judge a crucial question: if they decided the first confession was coerced or unreliable, did they have to throw out all the confessions that followed? The judge said no. Hernandez was convicted. After losing in state courts, a federal appeals court agreed with him and threw out his conviction. But the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Court made three key rulings. First, the Constitution does not require juries to decide whether a confession was voluntary. That is a protection New York state created on its own, not something the federal Constitution demands. Second, the Supreme Court precedent Hernandez relied on addressed only what judges must do before trial, not what judges must tell juries during deliberations. Third, if a jury was never required to decide something in the first place, a judge has no obligation to explain it to them.
The decision reinforces a basic rule: federal courts have limited power to overturn state convictions. They can only step in for serious problems, not simply because a federal judge might have done things differently.
Why Three Justices Disagreed
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson stated they would not have heard this case at all. They did not fully explain their reasoning, but their position suggests concern about whether Hernandez's many confessions were truly reliable, or that the lower court's decision deserved more careful review. The three justices did not write a full dissent, which means the Court's decision stands unchallenged in the official record.
What This Means for Confessions and Fair Trials
This case sits at the intersection of two competing concerns. On one hand, confessions are powerful evidence. A person admitting to a crime can seem like the strongest proof of guilt. On the other hand, police interrogation tactics can be coercive. A suspect might confess to something they did not do to escape a stressful situation, or because they are confused or vulnerable.
The Supreme Court has long recognized this tension. It has created rules about how police must conduct interrogations and when judges must throw out confessions obtained through improper tactics. But this decision shows those protections have limits. If a state creates its own additional protections for defendants, those state protections do not automatically trigger federal constitutional rules. And federal courts cannot easily override state court decisions about how to apply state law.
Confessions matter enormously in criminal cases, but the rules about when they can be challenged are complicated and vary by state. A confession that seems questionable might still be admissible in court, and federal courts may not be able to fix the problem even if they wanted to. That is why the reliability of confessions, and the circumstances under which they are given, remain central to debates about criminal justice.