The American criminal justice system is at a tipping point. The Reid accusatory model of interrogation, which has for decades defined interrogation in the United States, is struggling to hold back a growing body of literature in the social sciences condemning such techniques and advocating for reform. While social scientists have for years criticized accusatory interrogation techniques by showing how certain techniques unnecessarily increase the risk of false confessions, this criticism has only led to marginal change. Accusatory interrogation techniques still exist within law enforcement, and courts continue to admit confessions elicited using these techniques. Unlike previous articles on confession evidence, this Note is not a critique of the totality-of-the-circumstances test or an analysis of the current state of voluntariness law. Rather, this Note analyzes the disconnect between the courts and the social sciences, focusing on how the courts' outdated understanding of coercion has impacted the evaluation of confession evidence and fueled the continued existence of the Reid accusatory model of interrogation. Recognizing this disconnect, the Note maps out three paths away from the accusatory interrogation techniques of the past, toward a new understanding of coercion and a reformed, more reliable system of interrogation in the American criminal justice system.