Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by establishing a categorical rule requiring the admission of expert testimony on the allegedly coercive circumstances of a confession

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022), this Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in ordering a new trial for respondent Terence Tekoh on the theory that using an un-Mirandized confession in a criminal trial violates the Fifth Amendment. On remand, however, the Ninth Circuit reinstated its ruling that Tekoh is entitled to a new trial. This time, a divided panel held that the district court was required to admit expert testimony on the potential coercive effect of commonly used interrogation techniques. Judge Miller, who had joined the original panel decision concerning Miranda, dissented from the evidentiary decision on remand. Ten other judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel’s decision conflicted with the decisions of other circuits, created a categorical rule requiring the admission of expert testimony bolstering a defendant’s testimony that his confession was coerced and false, and “will have a substantial disruptive effect on the administration of justice in [the Ninth Circuit].” App. 71a. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by establishing—in conflict with the decisions of other circuits—a categorical rule requiring the admission of expert testimony that opines on the allegedly coercive circumstances of a confession to a crime. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit otherwise erred when it mandated the admission of expert testimony that certain lawful interrogation techniques generate false, coerced confessions, where the purpose of such testimony was to impermissibly bolster Tekoh’s account of the circumstances of his confession.