In an effort to assist investigators in determining the type of investigative and behavior provoking questions to ask during an interview, as well as the themes and alternative questions that can be used if an interrogation is appropriate, we have developed the following information for you to have at your fingertips. 

For each of the crimes listed below we will provide you with suggestions as to the type of investigative information to develop during the interview, how to phrase the behavior provoking questions, and if an interrogation is warranted, what themes and alternatives may be appropriate. As an example, here is the information for Arson cases:

Amid an uptick in coronavirus-related hate crimes, investigators can use empathy to relate to offenders  

It appears that the number of hate crimes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic is increasing at an alarming rate.

"People are worried about the coronavirus, which we're watching in this state – there's also a virus of hate, and it's spreading, and it's spreading quickly,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in Albany, New York.

New York Attorney General Letitia James launched a hotline for victims of coronavirus-related bias crimes.

California Governor Gavin Newsom described a "huge increase" in assaults targeting the Asian-American community in his state.

When an individual is identified as an alleged COVID-19 hate crime offender, selecting the proper interrogation theme is critical in soliciting the truth. In Anatomy of Interrogation Themes, I address many hate crimes against persons and property, as well as bullying. However, I would like to offer more specific interrogation themes addressing this topic as it relates to the COVID-19 outbreak.   

The state of New York is considering legislation that would prohibit investigators from lying to a subject about evidence in the case, such as indicating to the subject during the interrogation that there is a DNA match with samples taken from the victim; that there is a witness who says that they saw the subject commit the crime; that the subject’s finger prints were found at the scene of the crime; or that an accomplice made an incriminating statement implicating the subject in the commission of the crime.  Let’s examine what the courts say about investigators lying about evidence, whether or not lying about evidence is likely to cause a false confession, and what we teach about the use of deception during an interrogation.  

The Reid Technique is the most widely used and well-known method of questioning subjects in the world because of its efficiency and built in safeguards to protect the innocent and identify the guilty.  However, because the name is so universally known, it has become attached to all interview and interrogation techniques….even those that are egregious and that we teach never to employ.

It’s like the name Kleenex. When someone asks for a tissue, even when they refer to it as a kleenex, they do not necessarily mean the brand name…..but the term kleenex has became the universal term for a tissue.  So to has the Reid name become associated with all interrogation techniques – even those that are bad.

Here is what we do teach:

• What questions should be asked to determine the voluntariness and validity of a subject’s confession?   See entry 8/27/2019
• Don’t Be Fooled –They use the core elements of the Reid Technique
• Development of THE REID TECHNIQUE®
• Modifying Techniques When Questioning Juveniles and Individuals with Mental or Psychological Disabilities - See 6/28/2019 entry
• If they had followed the core principles of the Reid Technique these false confessions would not have occurred  - See 6/27/2019 entry
• Netflix Defames Reid - See 6/19/2019 entry
• References to John E. Reid and Associates in Making a Murderer Part 2  - See 11/05/2018 entry
• Reid and the Innocence Project  - See 3/29/2018 entry
• Clarifying Misrepresentations about Law Enforcement Interrogation Techniques  - See 1/26/2018 entry
•  “There’s a lot of gold in the Reid interrogation manual and on reid.com and we really really encourage you guys to go up there and cite that material” - See 6/05/2017 entry
• The development of then-cnfrontational interview - See 5/18/2017 entry
• How the courts view the Reid Technique   - See 1/25/2017 entry and recent entry dated 8/20/2019
• International research validates the core principles of the Reid Technique - See 5/11/2015 entry

What questions should be asked to determine the voluntariness and validity of a subject’s confession?

While there are numerous issues to consider in the process of evaluating the voluntariness and validity of a subject’s confession, the following questions may be helpful in making such an assessment. 

On a quarterly basis we publish on our website Legal Updates, providing our clients and readers with the latest in court decisions on a variety of interrogation and confession issues.  In this article we will highlight some of those recent decisions regarding: 

• Minimization
• Misrepresenting evidence to a subject
• Improper interrogation techniques
• The value of recording interrogations 

The Reid Technique is the foundation for many training programs on effective interviewing and interrogation techniques.  Regardless of what some may claim, an independent audit of their course content will confirm the use the core elements of the Reid Technique.  We will provide you with an illustration in this article.  

THE REIDTECHNIQUE® has evolved extensively over the years to become the most current and up to date trainingprogram available on investigative interviewing and interrogation techniques,continually monitoring legal decisions and interrogation research.  Here is a brief overview of the developmentof THE REID TECHNIQUE over the last 72 years. 

In Gomez v. California (January 2019) the US District Court, E.D. California, upheld the lower court’s decision to admit the incriminating statements made by the defendant who was convicted of twelve counts of committing forcible lewd acts upon a child under fourteen years old.  In reviewing the admissibility of the defendant’s confession, the District Court stated that no single factor is dispositive in evaluating the voluntariness of a statement, and whether the confession is voluntary depends on the totality of circumstance.  Fromm the District Court’s opinion: 

Relevant considerations concerning whether an interrogation is coercive include the length of the interrogation, its location, and its continuity, as well as the defendant's maturity, education, physical condition, and mental health.  In assessing police tactics that are allegedly coercive, courts have only prohibited those psychological ploys which are so coercive they tend to produce a statement that is both involuntary and unreliable under all of the circumstances.  Investigators are permitted to ask tough questions, exchange information, summarize evidence, outline theories, confront, contradict, and even debate with a suspect… They may accuse the suspect of lying … and urge him or her to tell the truth.  Investigators can suggest the defendant may not have been the actual perpetrator, or may not have intended a murder victim to die. They can suggest possible explanations of events and offer a defendant the opportunity to provide details of the crime. Absent improper threats or promises, there is no constitutional principle forbidding the suggestion by authorities that it is worse for a defendant to lie in the presence of overwhelming and incriminating evidence...Deception does not undermine the voluntariness of a defendant's statements to investigators unless it is of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement. 

A confession is not invalidated simply because the possibility of a death sentence was discussed beforehand, but only where the confession results directly from the threat such punishment will be imposed if the suspect is uncooperative—coupled with a promise of leniency in exchange for cooperation. Suggestions by investigators that killings may have been accidental or resulted from a fit of rage during a drunken blackout fall far short of promises of lenient treatment in exchange for cooperation. This is especially the case where detectives did not represent that the prosecutor or court would grant the defendant any particular benefit if he told them how the killings occurred. 

Defendant's minimization argument fails to convince us the detectives interrogated him by improper coercive means. The detectives presented defendant with justifications for his crime, suggesting A.C. may have consented in the conduct. The detectives told him several times he was lying and asked him to tell the truth. The detectives speculated about the facts of the case and suggested defendant was in love with A.C., that they were in a relationship, and even that she may have initiated some sexual contact. A technique allowing the defendant to share the blame with the victim is permissible and does not render a confession the product of undue psychological coercion… The questions and hypotheticals posed did not imply defendant was innocent or suggest there would be no criminal charges against him. The detectives conducted permissible questioning. Neither detective made an improper promise or threat to defendant… The “minimization” by detectives of defendant's conduct included no promise of leniency from the prosecutor or the trial court.

The minimization used by the detectives was not employed to suggest to defendant he was innocent of any crime, and there was no mention of leniency. No threats were employed by the detectives to coerce defendant. After Skrinde suggested defendant and A.C. were in a relationship, Garcia stated this could change everything. But rather than implying defendant's innocence, Garcia immediately suggested defendant forced A.C. to have anal sex. This interrogation technique did not minimize defendant's culpability. Defendant initially denied the detectives' suggestion that he had a relationship with A.C. Later, defendant admitted molesting A.C. but denied using force. In summary, defendant has not demonstrated his interrogators used impermissible coercive techniques that overborne his will. Defendant cooperated with the detectives and his conduct was voluntary. 

In People v. Lucero (January 2019) the court summarized the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo on the issue of false confessions as follows:

“Richard Leo, a professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco, testified as an expert witness on false confessions. Leo explained that the “goal of police interrogation is to get an incriminating statement, ideally a narrative confession from a criminal suspect whom the police officers believe is guilty in order to build a case against them.” “[T]he assumption is people aren’t going to [confess] unless you put pressure on them and use [specialized] psychological accusatory techniques.” The interrogation process is “designed for guilty people” and interrogations are “fundamentally accusatory.” Therefore, “when innocent people are mistakenly interrogated, sometimes they will make or agree to false confessions.” “There are a number of techniques and a number of personality traits that increase the risk of why somebody would falsely confess, and the explanations are typically based both on the person’s individual make up as well as the techniques that are used during interrogation.” When an interrogation is prolonged, it “usually makes people feel desperate, hopeless, wanting to escape, for them, what is a high-pressure environment.” Most false confessions are the product of “longer interrogations.” “Although [interrogations are] not designed to psychologically coerce” people, “that’s the effect nonetheless.” Leo testified that hundreds of cases of false confessions have been documented and the law enforcement community is cognizant of, and acknowledges, the phenomenon of false confessions. However, false confessions remain the exception.” 

For detailed information about law enforcement interrogation techniques and the suggestion that they can cause false confessions, see  “Clarifying Misrepresentations About Law Enforcement Interrogation Techniques” – click here.

Using the Reid technique — a three-part process that includes Fact Analysis, Behavior Analysis Interview and the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation — Byington was able to get Christopher to open up about the night his parents were murdered.

Byington started the interrogation by telling Christopher he had interviewed various people about the case and deduced "there's no doubt you caused the death of your parents." In shock, Christopher ultimately broke down and admitted the murders were "just an accident." He told detectives that he went to Pizza Plus around 10:30 PM on the 29th and got into an argument with his parents about money.

Christopher detailed how he slit his mother's throat before chasing his father out of the restaurant, grabbing him from behind and choking him. He then went back inside and bludgeoned his mother with the fire extinguisher to make sure she "was not moving." Christopher said he replaced the fire extinguisher and cut his father's throat before leaving the crime scene. 

Christopher was charged the capital murders and robberies of Harvey and Valerie Looney, and he pleaded no contest…..he was sentenced to life in prison….”

In the Netflix series, Making a Murder Part 2, the interrogation of Brendan Dassey is discussed by Attorney Steve Drizen and Attorney Lauara Nirider during the first 15 minutes of Episode 2.  (Attorneys Drizin and Nirider represent Dassey in his appeals). 

The two attorneys are shown on screen giving a presentation to lawyers at Northwestern University Law School, discussing the Brendan Dassey interrogation.  During their presentation they reference John E. Reid and Associates as the benchmark for proper interrogation practices and procedures.  Specifically, they state that Reid and Associates teaches that using deception or false evidence “should be avoided when interrogating a youthful suspect with low social maturity or a suspect with diminished mental capacity.” 

They then again refer to Reid and Associates as teaching that investigators should not reveal all of the case information to the subject during the interrogation so that the investigator can use the disclosure of that information by the subject as an indication of the authenticity of his confession. 

A third reference to Reid occurs when attorney Nirider says that, according to Reid and Associations, “slumping in the chair, putting your hand over your mouth, saying I don’t know, and not looking a person in the eye” – all behaviors that Brendan Dassey displayed during his interrogation - are behaviors indicative of a deceptive person.  Attorney Nirider states that these behaviors are part of Brendan Dassey’s disability and not indications of deceptive behavior, and that the investigators misclassified his status as a deceptive subject.

The problem with this discussion by Attorney Nirider is that she completely ignores the fact that all of these behaviors must be viewed in context, and she ignores the rules that we teach that the investigator must follow in the evaluation of a subject’s behavior, as well as the factors (such as culture) that must be considered in the evaluation of a subject’s behavior.  In a letter that we wrote to Attorneys Drizin and Nirider over a year ago on March 31, 2017, we pointed these issues out to her.

Here are excerpts from that letter:  

We also teach that the investigator must understand all of the factors that can influence a subject’s behavior, as well as the rules that we need to follow in the evaluation of a subject’s behavior – in particular, establishing the subject’s baseline or normal behavior…..

Establish the subject’s normal behavioral patterns. Certainly there are non-deceptive reasons for a suspect to exhibit poor eye contact, respond to questions quickly or slowly, to scratch themselves, yawn, clear their throat, change their posture, etc. Before any of these behaviors can be considered a criteria of deception, the investigator must first establish what the subject’s normal behavioral patterns are.  Consequently, at the outset of each interview the investigator should spend several minutes discussing nonthreatening information (perhaps casual conversation or collecting biographical information) so as to establish a behavioral baseline for the particular subject. Then, as the interview progresses and the subject exhibits behavioral changes when the issue under investigation is discussed, these changes may take on added significance.

In summary, although the verbal and nonverbal behavior displayed by a subject during an interview may provide valuable and accurate indications of possible innocence or guilt, the investigator should evaluate the behavior according to the guidelines states in Chapter 9 [in Criminal Interrogation and Confessions]. Furthermore, the following factors, which may affect the validity of behavior symptoms, should be considered: the perceived seriousness of the offense, the mental and physical condition of the subject, any underlying psychiatric or personality disorders; level of intelligence; degree of maturity; and the extent or absence of social responsibilities.

In a murder mystery novel by Scott Pratt, entitled “Good Faith”  (2018) the author makes the following reference to the Reid Technique:

Page 148:

“He thought briefly about how he would conduct the interrogations.  The Reid technique was now standard operating procedure in law enforcement.  Make the suspect as comfortable as possible.  Make him think you’re there to help him.  Try to find some common ground and get him talking – it didn’t matter what the conversation was about initially.   The theory behind the Reid technique was that suspects would feel great and want to unload their burden.  The officer was there to facilitate the cleansing of the spirit.  Get him talking, eventually turn the conversation toward the crime, and gently persuade him to confess.”

Independence Day Savings

Register for any of these open enrollment July courses and save.

4 Day INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING AND ADVANCED INTERROGATION™

$795 Regular Price - July Special $695

$100 Savings

San Diego CA / July 10 - 13, 2018

Orlando FL / July 9 - 12, 2018

Baltimore MD / July 17 - 20, 2018

Tallahassee FL / July 24 - 27, 2018

Tucson AZ / July 24 - 27, 2018

The Independence Day savings are for the July open enrollment training programs listed above. Courses have limited seating! Register early to guarantee your seat. Use code INDEPENDENCE DAY when registering.

The investigative interview process in the Reid Technique is called the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI).    The BAI consists of three types of questions: Initial Questions designed to develop biographical information, establish rapport, acclimate the subject to the interview environment, describe the investigative process and establish a behavioral baseline for the subject. 

The second group of questions are the Investigative Questions, which are designed to develop the subject’s story or version of events concerning the issue under investigation, his/her alibi during the time period in question, and the who, what, when, where, why and how of activities relevant to the issue under investigation.  In previous Investigator Tips we discussed using open-ended questions to develop the subject’s pure version of events, and how to use follow up questions to develop additional details from their initial account.  (See March/April 2017 and May/June 2017 Investigator Tips: Using Open-ended Questions During the Investigative Interview Part 1, and Part 2). 

The third type of questions are the Behavior Provoking Questions designed to elicit responses that can be evaluated as to the subject’s credibility about their potential involvement in the issue under investigation.  There have been in excess of 25 behavior provoking questions developed over the years but this Investigator Tip will only discuss four of them, and then illustrate their use in a case involving 2 subjects.  Research has indicated that most truthful subjects answer the behavior provoking questions one way while deceptive subject’s answer the same questions in a very different way.

• When the interview became custodial the suspect should have been advised of his Miranda rights
• Promises on leniency nullify the admissibility of the confession
• Officer’s questions to defendant while at door of her residence, were compelling, thus giving rise to the need for Miranda warnings
• Lying about DNA evidence is not coercive
• Lying about footprints, fingerprints and other evidence is not coercive
• Court finds confession inadmissible due to denial of subject’s request for an attorney
• Court suggests police used Assistant Principal to question student to avoid the advisement of rights 

In Dassey v. Dittmann (December 2017) the U.S.Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, upheld the admissibility of Brendan Dassey’sconfession, ruling that the “state court’s determination that defendantconfessed to murder voluntarily was not an unreasonable application of SupremeCourt precedent.”  From the Court of Appeals decision: 

Whether Dassey's confession was voluntary or not is measured againsta general standard that takes into account the totality of the circumstances….Some factors would tend to support a finding that Dassey's confession was notvoluntary: his youth, his limited intellectual ability, some suggestions by theinterrogators, their broad assurances to a vulnerable suspect that honestywould produce leniency, and inconsistencies in Dassey's confession. Many otherfactors, however, point toward a finding that it was voluntary. Dassey spokewith the interrogators freely, after receiving and understanding Miranda warnings,and with his mother's consent. The interrogation took place in a comfortablesetting, without any physical coercion or intimidation, without even raisedvoices, and over a relatively brief time. Dassey provided many of the mostdamning details himself in response to open–ended questions. On a number ofoccasions he resisted the interrogators' strong suggestions on particulardetails. Also, the investigators made no specific promises of leniency. 

After the state courts found the confession voluntary, a federaldistrict court and a divided panel of this court found that the state courts'decision was unreasonable and that Dassey was entitled to a writ of habeascorpus…. The state courts' finding that Dassey's confession was voluntary wasnot beyond fair debate, but we conclude it was reasonable. We re–verse thegrant of Dassey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

…. Turning to the techniques used in the interrogation, theinvestigators told Dassey many times that they already knew what had happenedwhen in fact they did not. Such deception is a common interview technique. Toour knowledge, it has not led courts (and certainly not the Supreme Court) tofind that a subject's incriminating answers were involuntary…. Also, most ofthe incriminating details in Dassey's confession were not suggested by thequestioners. He volunteered them in response to open–ended questions. 

…. The requirement that courts take “special care” in analyzingjuvenile confessions does not call for habeas relief here. The state appellatecourt met the requirements for analyzing juvenile confessions by consideringDassey's age, his intellectual capacity, and the voluntary absence of hismother during the interrogation. The state court noted that the officers readDassey his Miranda rightsand that Dassey later remembered his rights and agreed to talk anyway. Thecourt assessed coercion in relation to Dassey's vulnerabilities, including his“age, intellectual limitations and high suggestibility.” The court did notlimit its inquiry to only whether the most abusive interrogation techniqueswere used. The court examined the tones and volumes of the investigators'voices, finding that the officers “used normal speaking tones, with nohectoring, threats or promises of leniency,” though they did prod Dassey to behonest and sought to establish a rapport with him. The court even consideredDassey's physical comfort by noting he sat on a sofa and was offered food,drink, and restroom breaks. 

Click here for additionaldetails from the court’s opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 
JORDAN MONROE, Defendant.

Cr. No. 16-055 WES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

September 11, 2017

Preface

You should be aware of certain comments made by Chief Judge, William E. Smith, of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island in the above referenced case  regarding the Reid Technique in deciding the defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements.  Among other things, the defendant, Jordan Monroe, claimed that the Reid Technique rendered his statements involuntary.  Judge Smith followed the established legal precedent in finding that the use of the Reid Technique did not violate the defendant's due process rights, and rejected the defendant's claim.  However, Judge Smith personally sided with the position taken by some criminal defense attorneys and a few law professors, who question the voluntariness of any incriminating statements made by a suspect while being questioned by law enforcement officers using the Reid Technique.

The Reid Technique consists of a three-phase process beginning with Fact Analysis, followed by the Behavior Analysis Interview (which is a non-accusatory interview designed to develop investigative and behavioral information), followed by, when appropriate, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation.  While all subjects in an investigation are interviewed, very few are interrogated. 

Once it is determined by the investigative information that the subject is involved in the commission of the crime, the interrogation begins by advising the subject of the investigation results.  The investigator then begins to develop what we refer to as a theme in which we offer the subject a “moral excuse” for the suspect’s commission of the offense or minimizing the moral implications of the conduct. 

Defense attorneys were encouraged to use the information on our website (www.reid.com) and our book, Criminal Interrogationand Confessions (5^th ed. 2013) as a reference for proper police practices that should be followed when interrogating a suspect.

In July 2014, at the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys conference, there was a presentation entitled, “ Theories and Advocacy Strategies in False ConfessionCases.”  The presenters were Steve Drizin, Center on Wrongful Convictions, Chicago, IL; Laura Nirider, Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, Chicago, IL.

Here is a transcript of Laura’s comments regarding the value of the information on our website and in our book for attorneys to review in preparing their briefs to point out best practices.

“Other things we cite when we are writing this stuff up legally, ah, this is beautiful right, we love as Steve says finding law enforcement sources to support our positions.  John E. Reid and Associates,the marketers of The Reid Technique of Interrogation have a great website, reid.com, I encourage you all to go there, there’s a lot of great material on there, there’s actually, and in their book as well, this is from their book their interrogation manual:

Basically don’t tell them that if you confess you’re gonna, things are going to go better for you.  This is wonderful.  We cite this in all of our briefs.  This is like law enforcement best practices, don't’ promise leniency in any way, right.

Ah, this one isgreat….it’s a little like… this is ah again from the Reid interrogation manual:

“Consideran innocent rape suspect who is falsely told that DNA evidence positively identifies him as the rapist.” 

Of course Reid says:

“Will this false statement cause an innocent person to suddenly confess?  Of course not. However, (says Reid) considert he false statements were then used to convince the suspect that he would be found guilty of the crime and sentenced to prison.” 

Well we saw that in Robert Davis, didn’t we?

“Further suppose the investigator tells the suspect that if he cooperates by confessing he will be afforded leniency.”

Again we saw that in Robert Davis.

“Under these conditions, (says Reid) it becomes much more plausible that an innocent person may decide to confess not because, solely because,  fictitious evidence was presented but because that evidence was used to augment an improper interrogation technique.”

The threat.  Beautiful.  Cite it everywhere.  Don’t combine lies and threats, that’s what Reid says.  That’s what police officers should be doing.  I use it whenever I have an interrogation where the police officer did just that.

And they go on and on and on.  Most of these are from the book as well:

“Don’t use deception with youthful suspects or individuals with low social maturity.”

“Don’t use an accident theme to get the person to sort of admit to  accidentally having done the crime.”

“Use extreme care when questioning juveniles.”

“If the suspect agrees to take a polygraph as soon as possible”

You saw that with Robert Davis remember in the first clip he said please bring up the polygraph I’ll take it I’ll show you I’m innocent to Reid that’s a huge indicator of innocence.  That’s important to Reid. And that’s something that should be embraced as well.

And of courset hey say:

“Don’t try to persuade a suspect that they committed a crime and just don’t remember it.”

There’s a lot of gold is the point of all this.  There’s a lot of gold in the Reid interrogation manual and on reid.com and we really really encourage you guys to go up there and cite that material.  Same thing on contamination.  This is something that law enforcement and defense attorneys should be able to agree upon it is just a bad practice for the officers to tell the suspect how the crime happened during theinterrogation.  Right? As the people from the video said the interrogator from the Robert Davis video said, it defeats the purpose of…. and John E. Reid has some great quotes on that that we put into our brief as well.  It is imperative they say not to disclose information about a crime during theinterrogation.  It is imperative that that information comes out of the suspect’s mouth, otherwise any statement you get loses evidentiary value.

There’s, and again I think I already talked about this I won’t mention it again there is law enforcement recognition from John E. Reid and Associates that juveniles are more vulnerable during interrogation. And there is a beautiful publication, a beautiful publication from theI nternational Association of Chiefs of Police called “Reducing Risk: AnExecutive Guide to Juvenile Interviews and Interrogations” and it is everything that a defense attorney would ask for in terms of a law enforcement statement of best practices  on how to question a juvenile….. 

The IACP document that Laura references can be found on this page at the entry dated 01/16/2016.

Reid & Associates, Inc., developer of theReid technique of interrogation and leading law enforcement training firm, also instructs law enforcement officers to

Take special precautions when interviewing juveniles or individuals with significant mental or psychological impairments[sic]  Every interrogator must exercise extreme cautionand care when interviewing or interrogating a juvenile or a person who is mentally or psychologically impaired. Certainly these individuals can and do commit very serious crimes, but since many false confession cases involve juveniles and/or individuals with some significant mentalor psychological disabilities, extreme care must be exercised when questioning these individuals and the investigator has to modify their approach with these individuals. Furthermore, when a juvenile or person who is mentally or psychologically impaired confesses, the investigator should exercise extreme diligence in establishing the accuracy of such a statement through subsequent corroboration. In these situations it is imperative that the interrogator does not reveal details of the crime so that they can use the disclosure of such information by the suspect as verification of the confession's authenticity.

Further on they reference “Fred E. Inbau, JohnE. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley & Brian C. Jayne, CRIMINAL INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS 352 (JONES AND BARTLETT, 5THED. 2013)(hereinafter Inbau, Reid, et. al) (The use of fictitious evidence “should be avoided when interrogating a suspect with low socialmaturity or a diminished mental capacity” because “these suspects maynot have the fortitude or the confidence to challenge such evidence . . . and may become confused as to their own possible involvement, ifthe police tell them evidence clearly indicates they committed the crime.”).”

They also state, “Reid and Associates specifically instructs its interrogators to avoid interrogations centered on“helping” the suspect because some courthave interpreted such statements as implied promises ofleniency, ....... Inbau, Reid, et. Al, supra, at 331.

John E. Reid and his colleague, Northwestern Professor of Law Fred E. Inbau, developed the non-confrontational interview as an integral part of any questioning of a suspect.

The following excerpts are from the second edition of their book, Criminal Interrogationand Confessions, published in 1967 (the first edition was published in 1962 but was revised after the US Supreme Court’s 1966 decision, Miranda v. Arizona).

When discussing how to approach and question a subject regarding possible involvement in the commission of the crime under investigation, the authors recommend that the investigator “assume a neutral position and refrain from making any statement or implications one way or the other until the subject discloses some information or indications pointing either to his innocence or his guilt.”

In conducting this non-confrontational interview the authors state, “The subject must be questioned and engaged in conversation in order to permit the [investigator] to study his behavior and conduct, to search for significant remarks orcontradictions in his statements, and to check his statements in the light of known facts and circumstances.”

Reid and Inbau suggest that the following questions should be part of this interview:

• Ask the subject if he knows why he is being questioned
• Ask the subject to relate all he knows about the occurrence, the victim, and possible suspects
• Obtain from the subject detailed information about his activities before, at the time of, and after the occurrence in question
• Ask the subject if he ever thought about committing the offense in question or one similar to it
• Ask the subject whether he is willing to take a lie-detector test

These guidelines and questions developed into what is today an integral part of the Reid Technique - the Behavior Analysis Interview.

In all investigations we teach to conduct a non-accusatory, non-confrontational BehaviorAnalysis Interview with each subject to determine whether or not an interrogation is appropriate.

John E. Reid & Associates has always advocated for the proper treatment of all suspects during an investigation. We teach that every suspect needs to be treated in a respectful and lawful manner.

One of the tenants of THE REID TECHNIQUE® is that an investigator should never make any promise of leniency or in any way threaten a suspect to obtain an admission of guilt. Any admission that is obtained needs to be properly substantiated. 

An important way to document that a suspect interview and interrogation is conducted properly is by recording the process. To help promote this, Reid is pleased to announce our collaboration with the iRecord Company.

IRecord is the premier provider of recording software and video equipment for Law Enforcement Agencies and Child Advocacy Centers. They provide secure, high quality recording solutions that can be adapted to interview rooms of all types.

Our goal in working with iRecord is to encourage the recording of suspect interviews and interrogations and to provide investigators the skills necessary to conduct effective, lawful interrogations.

Reid invites any agency that installs an iRecord system to send one of their investigators through our 4-Day Interview and Interrogation seminar for free. We will also allow any agency that currently uses an iRecord system to send someone through our training for free.

To obtain additional information about the iRecord Company and their services you can go to their website at iRecord.tv. You can also receive further details about our collaborative free seat policy by contacting Toni Overman.

• Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts
• Do not make any promises of leniency
• Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences
• Do not deny the subject any of their rights
• Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs
• Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

REID'S RESPONSE TO W-Z's

MARCH 6, 2017 PRESS RELEASE 

Over the past 50 years, several hundred thousand law enforcement officers have taken our course.  It is regarded by the law enforcement community as the gold standard in interviewing and interrogating suspects in criminal investigations.  Using the Reid technique does not result in false confessions.  Just the opposite is true.  False confessions result when suspects in criminal investigations are interrogated using methods which we specifically advise NOT TO USE. 

UPDATE: 21 MARCH 2017

Calibre Press article by Owner Jim Glennon re the WZ Press Release

Does Reid & Associates teach officers a confrontational method of interviewing and interrogating that results in false confessions? I ask that question because recently they were basically accused of that. Or rather-the method they teach was accused of that.

So does their method result in false confessions? Not at all.

First it's important to address this at the outset: I have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with Reid & Associates, who I believe to have the premier interview and interrogation training program in the country. I have, however, been to more than a half a dozen classes, seminars and lectures conducted by them over my 30-year career.

Click here for complete article

As we move into 2017 we will be celebrating 70 years of excellence.  John E. Reid founded the company in 1947.  Over the last seven decades the Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation has become the gold standard of the industry.

Attorney Thomas Sullivan has done extensive work on promoting the value of electronically recording interrogations and he has extensively surveyed police departments around the country to determine the extent of recording interrogations.  Attorney Sullivan has provided a list of 23 states and the District of Columbia that require that interrogations be electronically recorded. 

Click Here

Attorney Sullivan has also provided a Model Recording Act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.  

Click below for a  copy of the legislation that modifies The Juvenile Court Act of 1987, expanding the requirement to electronically recored juvenile interrogations in Illinois.

In State v. Tapke  the Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld the defendant's confession which was obtained by an officer who was trained in The Reid Technique. Dr. Richard Ofshe testified about false confessions and attempted to describe The Reid Technique. The jury subsequently rejected his testimony and "chose not to discredit it [the confession]."

It is interesting to note that in his testimony Dr. Ofshe testified that as part of The Reid Technique interrogators are taught the following:

"So what police have learned to do is to communicate the message through a series of suggestions… the idea being to communicate the understanding that there’s a deal on the table, but without ever explicitly saying here’s the deal.” He used the example of a person accused of GSI. He testified that the police would say something like this to a suspect: "[Y]ou're not a sexual predator; you're someone who needs treatment. What would you rather do, go to prison as a sex offender, or get some therapy in treatment."

It is interesting to note that the exact opposite is the case - we teach not to make any statements that refer to punishment, threats or promises of leniency and in our training seminars we highlight the case, Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court indicated that "what seemed to disturb the Court the most was the apparent reference to counseling which they felt "implicitly suggested to him that "counseling" would be an appropriate avenue for him to pursue after making a confession." In other words, if he confessed he would get counseling instead of jail." This is exactly what we teach not to do. 

Physical coercion, torture, duress, denial of rights, threats, and promises of leniency are the poison pills of legally admissible, reliable, and voluntary confessions.  Obviously we should not engage in such behaviors or any tactics that could render a confession involuntary.  This article is intended to assist the professional investigator by outlining statements and techniques that should be avoided so as to insure the integrity of the subject’s confession.

In Jimerson v. State (June 2016) Dr. Richard Leo testified about police interrogation techniques and specifically referenced the Reid Technique.  The following is a discussion of several statements that Dr. Leo made during his testimony (as stated in the court’s decision) and our response. Dr. Leo’s statements are in italics.

In a recent court case (Radilla-Esquivel v. State) and an article discussing false confessions, there were references that “the Reid Technique is prohibited in some countries.”  That is a false statement. 

"When two or more persons have collaborated in the commission of a criminal offense and are later apprehended for questioning, there is usually a nagging fear on the part of each participant that one of them will "talk." Individually, each of them may feel confident of his own ability to evade detection and to avoid confessing, but they generally do not experience a comparable degree of confidence with regard to the co-offender's ability or even willingness to do so. Uppermost in their minds is the possibility that one of them will confess in an effort to obtain special consideration.”

In a recent report in an alleged false confession case, Dr. Richard Leo describes his view of current law enforcement interrogation techniques and the various issues associated with false confessions. Dr. Leo’s comments are reflective of the current approach that most false confession experts take when they discuss the issue.

In Dassey v. Dittmann (August 2016) the US District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, ruled that Brendan Dassey’s confession was involuntary.  Brendan Dassey’s confession to involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach was depicted in the Netflix series “Making a Murderer”.  The District Court ruled that the confession was the result of promises of leniency.

The District Court stated that, “the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

From the District Court’s opinion:

The court must look to all relevant facts to determine whether Dassey’s March 1 confession was voluntary. The interview occurred mid-day rather than in the early morning hours, or at a time when Dassey might expect to be asleep… The questioning was not particularly prolonged. Although Dassey was in the interview room from about 11:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., the relevant questioning spanned less than three hours…  Dassey was left alone for less than two hours, the longest single stretch being about 50 minutes. He was offered food and beverages. Although the interview occurred in a police station, it was in a “soft interview room,” with carpeting and upholstered furniture as opposed to a room with an uncarpeted floor, a hard table, and chairs. Wiegert advised Dassey of his rights under Miranda, including the right to not answer questions, to stop the questioning, and to have an attorney appointed for him and present during any questioning.

Dassey exhibited no signs of agitation or distress throughout the interview (he sobbed only after being told he was under arrest). The investigators maintained calm tones, never using aggressive or confrontational tactics. If these were the only relevant facts, they would tend to support a finding that the March 1 confession was voluntary. But when assessed against all of the circumstances of Dassey’s interrogation, these facts are overshadowed by far more consequential facts.

For starters, Dassey was a juvenile – only 16 years old – at the time of his confession.

Also significant is the fact that investigators questioned Dassey without the presence of a arent or other adult looking out for his interests.  It is true that neither federal law nor the United States Constitution requires that the police even inform a juvenile’s parents that the juvenile is being questioned or honor a juvenile’s request that a parent or other adult (other than a lawyer) be present during questioning…  However, because “[i]t is easier to overbear the will of a juvenile than of a parent or attorney, ... in marginal cases–when it appears the officer or agent has attempted to take advantage of the suspect’s youth or mental shortcomings–lack of parental or legal advice could tip the balance against admission.”

Not only did Dassey not have the benefit of an adult present to look out for his interests, the investigators exploited the absence of such an adult by repeatedly suggesting that they were looking out for his interests: “I wanna assure you that Mark and I both are in your corner, we’re on your side ...” and “... I’m your friend right now, but I ... gotta believe in you and if I don’t believe in you, I can’t go to bat for you.”

Moreover, Dassey’s borderline to below average intellectual ability likely made  him more susceptible to coercive pressures than a peer of higher intellect… Although he attended regular education classes, Dassey received special education support services.

Ten years earlier, his IQ was assessed at an overall score of 74.

Crucial in the voluntariness analysis is what the investigators told Dassey at the beginning of the interrogation. Fassbender assured Dassey, “from what I’m seeing ... I’m thinking you’re all right. OK, you don’t have to worry about things.”  In isolation, such a statement would not be a problem. Based on what the investigators actually knew at that time, they very possibly believed Dassey to be merely a witness.

However, less than two minutes later, Wiegert assured Dassey, “We  pretty much know everything[.] [T]hat’s why we’re talking to you again today.” … The combination of these statements, that the investigators already “pretty much know everything” and that Dassey did not “have to worry about things,” is an entirely different matter. The investigators were not merely telling Dassey, “Based upon what you have told us so far, we don’t think you have anything to worry about.”  Rather, what they told Dassey was, “We already know what happened and you don’t have anything to worry about.”  The investigators’ assertions that they already knew what happened and assurances that Dassey did not have anything to worry about were not confined to an isolated instance at the beginning but rather persisted throughout the interrogation.

Dassey’s conduct during the interrogation and his reaction to being told he was  under arrest clearly indicate that he really did believe that, if he told the investigators what they professed to already know, he would not be arrested for what he said.

The investigators’ statements were not merely ambiguous promises to Dassey that cooperating would lead to a better deal or that the investigators would “stand  behind” him or “go to bat” for him, … Rather, the investigators’ collective statements throughout the interrogation clearly led Dassey to believe that he would not be punished for telling them the incriminating details they professed to already know. While at one point Wiegert did rotely say, “We can’t make any promises...” this single, isolated statement was drowned out by the host of assurances that they already knew what happened and that Dassey had nothing to worry about.

Thus, the state courts’ finding that there were no “promises of leniency” was “against the clear and convincing weight of the evidence….”
 
The Supreme Court has long recognized that a false promise is a powerful force in overcoming a person’s free will…. Consequently, “[a] false promise of lenience is ‘an example of forbidden [interrogation] tactics, for it would impede the suspect in making an informed choice as to whether he was better off confessing or clamming up.’”

More than merely assuring Dassey that he would not be punished if he admitted  participating in the offenses, the investigators suggested to Dassey that he would  be punished if he did not tell “the truth.”   Especially when the investigators’ promises, assurances, and threats of negative consequences are assessed in conjunction with Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, lack of experience in dealing with the police, the absence of a parent, and other relevant personal characteristics, the free will of a reasonable person in Dassey’s position would  have been overborne. Once considered in this proper light, the conclusion that Dassey’s statement was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances is not one about which “fairminded jurists could disagree.”

That said, the court does not ascribe any ill motive to the investigators. Rather than an intentional and concerted effort to trick Dassey into confessing, what occurred here may have been the product of the investigators failing to appreciate how combining statements that they already “knew everything that happened” with assurances that Dassey was “OK” and had nothing to worry about collectively resulted in constitutionally impermissible promises.

In the January 2016 issue of Police Chief magazine, there was an article entitled “Using Science to Increase Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Investigations”. 

Dr. Barnard administered an instrument entitled “Dr. Thomas Grisso's Understanding and Appreciating Miranda Rights.” Dr. Barnard testified that Middleton's total score was 13 out of 30, more than two standard deviations below the mean. He testified that, although Middleton could paraphrase portions of Miranda, he “showed a very significant weakness in terms of his ability to intelligently apply knowledge of Miranda, to novel situations.” Dr. Barnard stated that it was difficult to reconcile his findings during the testing with what he saw on the confession video. He explained that there is no correlation between having had Miranda warnings administered in the past and actually understanding them. He also stated that there are no validity scales for Grisso’s Miranda test.

• Detective erroneously associates “sleep deprivation” with the Reid Technique
• Plaintiff claims Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism framed him for murder
• Lying about DNA evidence is not coercive
• Use of falsified documents purporting to represent the official results of a state-police lab’s DNA examination was coercive
• Court finds that the investigator fabricated the plaintiff’s confession “out of whole cloth”
• Promises to the defendant he would not face criminal charges if sexually touching a seven-year-old child was a mistake or accident was coercive
• Expert should have been allowed to testify re defendant’s mental disabilities on issue of confession reliability
• Suggesting to the defendant that he might get a better deal if he was “first to the table” and that he should consider the impact it would have on his son if he was in prison were not coercive statements
• Value of video recording the interrogation to demonstrate confession voluntariness
• Questioning the defendant at the scene of a stabbing was not custodial interrogation
• Minimizing the seriousness of the crime is not coercive
• Defendant suffering from withdrawal is capable of giving a voluntary confession
• The value of video recording the interrogation to refute false claims of promises of leniency
• Promises of leniency and threats of the death penalty are coercive
• If invocation of right to remain silent is ignored (“I'm done talking. I don't wanna talk no more.”) the resulting confession is inadmissible
• 7 hour interrogation not coercive

• California Supreme Court upholds rejection of Dr. Richard Leo testimony
• The value of videotaping the interrogation in disputing intoxication claim
• Confession voluntariness: ambiguous invocation of right to remain silent and rejection of claim of coercive police tactics; rejection of exhaustion claims
• Court upholds suppression of incriminating statements because Detective read Miranda rights in a "garbled' manner
• Investigator's pre-Miranda statement rendered the subsequent waiver coerced and involuntary
• Military Appeals Court upholds decision to deny defendant's request for assistance of expert in coercive interrogation techniques
• Intrinsic falsehoods do not create a coerced confession
• Ambiguous invocation of right to remain silent; and, police officer's implication that defendant might see the outside again if he confessed to a robbery gone bad instead of a premeditated murder was not an inducement rendering his confession involuntary
• Expert should have been allowed to testify on the factors influencing the reliability of the defendant's confession
• The statement "[i]f I am under arrest, take me to my bunk; all these questions, we can just skip them because I want to go to court" was an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent
• Value of videotaping interrogation to demonstrate defendant's demeanor; lying about DNA evidence not coercive
• South Dakota adopts the "trustworthiness" standard to determine whether admissions are admissible and sufficient to support a conviction in criminal cases
• Threat of being raped in jail contributed to a coerced confession
• Defendant's statement that he had a personal lawyer and that "[C]an we get him down here now, or ...?" was not an unambiguous request for a lawyer
• Reference to the possible prosecution of his son did not render the confession inadmissible

• Expert testimony on witness credibility
• Pre-arrest Silence
• Court decisions re inappropriate/impermissible investigator statements
  • In general
  • References to suspect's family members
  • Threats
  • Promises
• Court decisions re appropriate/permissible investigator statements
  • In general
  • Accident scenario/Self-Defense
  • Deception
  • Minimization
  • Suggestion of reduced charges
  • References to suspect's family members
• Physical factors that render confession inadmissible
• Court decisions regarding the testimony of false confession experts
  • Richard Leo
  • Richard Ofshe
  • Saul Kassin
  • Deborah Davis
  • Bruce Frumkin
  • Christian Meissner
  • James Walker
  • James Stark
  • Pamela Auble
  • Alan Hirsch
  • Samuel Roll
  • E. Clay Jorgensen
  • Christopher Lamps
  • Jeffrey Vanderwater-Piercy
  • Bobby Miller
  • Karen Fukutaki
  • John Di Bacco
  • Mark Vigen
  • Scott Bresler
  • Robert Latimer
  • Solomom Fulero
  • Mark Costanzo
  • Daniel Grant
  • Rosalyn Shultz
  • Susan Garvey
  • Allison Redlich
  • Tom Wright
  • Gregory DeClue
  • Shawn Roberson
  • Michael Fuller
  • David Mantell
  • Jorey Krawczyn
• Examples of erroneous testimony regarding the Reid Technique
• Value of video recording
  • What the courts say about recording
  • Admissibility of video recorded statements
• Interrogation room setting
• Length of interrogation
• Investigator pattern of practice considerations
• Juvenile considerations
• Polygraph examination issues
• Mental capacity - affect on incriminating statement
  • What constitutes mental retardation?
• Attorney negligence re not using false confession expert
• Miranda issues
  • In general
  • Referring to Miranda rights as a formality
  • Miranda on a roadside stop
  • Request for attorney when not in custody
  • Request for a lawyer before advisement of rights
  • Telling suspect his attorney is at the station
  • Fifth warning not required
  • Ambiguous/unambiguous invocation of rights
  • Determining custody
  • When is re-advisement necessary?
  • Do inmates need to be advised of Miranda rights?
  • Incriminating statements to undercover police
• Courts and The Reid Technique
• The totality of circumstances
• False confessions - defendant characteristics
• Gudjonsson suggestibility test
• Pragmatic implication
• Confession corroboration
  Click here for the Sept/Oct and Nov/Dec 2015 Investigator Tip

A general distinction can be made between childhood (1-9) and adolescence (10-15). While both groups will be motivated to lie to avoid consequences associated with acts of wrongdoing, psychologically they are operating at quite different levels. It is our general recommendation that a person under the age of 10 should not be subjected to active persuasion techniques during interrogation (themes, alternative questions). At this age the child is susceptible to suggestion and is motivated to please a person in authority. The interaction between the investigator and child should be limited to a question and answer session which is centered on factual information and simple logic. Although children in this age group generally have good memory skills, it is selective and the investigator must be cautious in forming opinions of deception based on inconsistent recall. In this younger age group the primary difficulty with respect to interrogation is the child's undeveloped level of social responsibility and inability to comprehend the concept of future consequences; their lives focus around "here and now" concepts.

On the other hand, most adolescents have developed a sense of social responsibility to the extent that they know if they admit committing a serious crime they will suffer some future consequence. For this reason a confrontational interrogation may be used with this age group involving some active persuasion. The extent of persuasive tactics should not be dictated by the seriousness of the crime, but rather the maturity of the child.

When a child is taken into custody and advised of his or her Miranda rights, the question of whether the child is capable of making a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights may arise. Certainly a child under the age of 10 is incapable of fully understanding the implications of waiving Miranda rights. Younger adolescents also may fall into this category. When a juvenile younger than 15, who has not had any prior experience with the police, is advised of his Miranda rights, the investigator should carefully discuss and talk about those rights with the subject (not just recite them) to make sure that he understands them. If attempts to explain the rights are unsuccessful, no interrogation should be conducted at that time. The same is true for a person who is mentally or psychologically impaired.

Courts routinely uphold the use of trickery and deceit during interrogations of adult suspects who are not mentally impaired. Within the area of trickery and deceit, clearly the most persuasive of these tactics is introducing fictitious evidence which implicates the suspect in the crime. As we state in Chapter 15, this technique should be avoided when interrogating a youthful suspect with low social maturity or a suspect with diminished mental capacity. These suspects may not have the fortitude or confidence to challenge such evidence and, depending on the nature of the crime, may become confused as to their own possible involvement if the police tell them evidence clearly indicates they committed the crime. Factors such as the adolescent's level of social responsibility and general maturity should be considered before fictitious evidence in introduced.

The ultimate test of the trustworthiness of a confession is its corroboration. The admissions, "I shot and killed Mr. Johnson" or, "I forced Susie Adams to have sex with me" may be elicited from an innocent juvenile (or adult) suspect. These admissions only become useful as evidence if they are corroborated by (1) information about the crime the suspect provides which was purposefully withheld from the suspect, and/or, (2) information not known by the police until after the confession which is subsequently verified.

1. A non-accusatory interview was not conducted before initiating an interrogation
   
   
2. The investigator misrepresented the case evidence when questioning a 13 year old
   
   
3. There was no corroboration of the incriminating statement
   
   
4. There was contamination - disclosing details of the crime

AUG 2015 | SECURITY MANAGEMENT

Proper Persuasion

COVER STORY | BY DAVID M. BUCKLEY

DAVID M. BUCKLEY IS A SENIOR INSTRUCTOR AT JOHN E. REID & ASSOCIATES, INC., WHERE HE IS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HE HAS BEEN TEACHING INTERVIEWING AND INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND IS THE AUTHOR OF HOW TO IDENTIFY, INTERVIEW & INTERROGATE CHILD ABUSE OFFENDERS AND COAUTHOR OF THE BOOK, ELECTRONIC RECORDING OF INTERROGATIONS

Using persuasive techniques, rather than traditional interrogative methods, can help an investigator elicit the truth from a subject.

MOVIES AND TELEVISION consistently portray interrogators as insensitive, aggressive brutes who use verbal threats, physical force, and false promises to get the information they seek. Think Jack Bauer of 24. But the process of interrogation has evolved significantly over the last few decades, so images associated with the word do not always accurately represent current tactics.

A proper investigative interview does involve questioning, but it is not conducted in a forceful or threatening way. There are a number of important techniques an investigator should cultivate to achieve the ultimate goal of the interview: eliciting the truth from the subject. Maintaining a nonaccusatory tone is critical; the subject must feel comfortable disclosing important facts. A particular line of questioning should be followed to keep the interview from feeling like an interrogation, but also to convince the subject that it is in his or her best interest to tell the truth. Finally, the use of positive persuasion is a cornerstone of the investigative process. This technique includes seven steps, and the second step, the development of persuasive statements, is highlighted in this article. Examples of interview techniques taken from a real-life scenario are included throughout to illustrate how the interviewer can use these best practices to conduct successful investigations.


Click here for the complete article

• Court admonishes investigator for not following Reid guidelines
• Value of video recording interrogation to determine competency to waive rights
• 10-year-old can make voluntary waiver of rights and can understand the wrongfulness of his acts
• The effectiveness of an anticipatory invocation of the Miranda-based right to counsel
• Court rejects claim that as a foreign student defendant did not understand the Miranda rights
• Court does not allow Dr. Craig Haney to testify about false confessions
• Military court upholds denial of request for false confession expert assistance
• Competency and the value of video recording the interrogation
• What constitutes interrogation?
• Human Lie Detector testimony inadmissible
• Confession found inadmissible due to promise of no jail and help finding shelter for defendant and her children to live
• Testimony regarding threat of deportation of family members should have been admitted; could cause a coerced confession
• Failure to record the interrogation was a violation of Wisconsin law, but harmless error
• The application of the Garibay test to determine confession admissibility from a non-native English speaker
• Testimony by the investigator that the defendant's answers during a police interview were evasive was acceptable
• Testimony of Dr. James Walker re false confession was not persuasive
• An 'implicit waiver' of the 'right to remain silent' is sufficient to admit a suspect's statement into evidence
• The defendant's claim that he could not read the Miranda waiver form because he did not have his glasses was disproved by the video of the interrogation

• Court rules that a minimal understanding of Miranda rights is sufficient to make a knowing and intelligent waiver
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Deborah Davis regarding false confessions
• Aggressive behavior does not lead to a coerced confession
• Defendant not under arrest in his home even though his movements are monitored
• The propriety of utilizing a suspect's family member during an interrogation
• "[n]o arrest, no matter how lawful or objectively reasonable, gives an arresting officer or his fellow officers license to deliberately manufacture false evidence against an arrestee"
• Confession voluntariness - a case study
• Prosecutor inserts false confession in police interrogation transcript
• Failure to call expert witness to testify about false confessions was not basis for finding of ineffective counsel
• Statements inadmissible because the investigator advised defendant he would protect him from going to jail
• Court admits the confession the defendant made to the victim's mother in a child abuse case
• Value of video to help determine if schizophrenia caused "unknowing or involuntary" responses
• "I just as soon wait until I get a public defendant or whatever" ruled an unequivocal invocation of request for an attorney
• Intoxication (methamphetamine ice, cocaine and beer) did not render incriminating statements inadmissible: value of video
• Lying to a suspect and "playing on his emotions" does not render the confession inadmissible

• Coming across as empathetic causes interrogation targets to open up more

• Court did not allow David Mantell to testify as an expert on false confessions
• Defendant was not denied effective assistance due to trial counsel's failure to develop and present expert witness testimony concerning claimed involuntariness of his confession
• Defendant was not denied effective assistance due to trial counsel's failure to develop and present expert witness testimony concerning claimed involuntariness of his confession
• Court finds expert testimony regarding false confession phenomenon was not admissible
• Violation of Garrity rule nullifies admissibility of incriminating statement
• The importance of accurate translations by the interpreter - erroneously suggesting a lesser punishment if defendant confessed
• Defendant should have been advised on his rights before questioning in the pat-down room
• Investigator's statement that it was time for the defendant to "come to Jesus" was not a coercive statement
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Jorey Krawczyn on false confession issues
• Use of a psychologically-oriented techniques during questioning is not inherently coercive; request to have his mother in the room was not an assertion of his right to remain silent
• Investigators failed to honor the defendant's invocation of his right to silence
• Videotaped interrogation admissible even though investigator repeatedly accused defendant of lying
• Suggesting to the defendant that the stabbing death was self-defense does not render the confession involuntary
• Employing deceptive practices to elicit a confession are not coercive
• 13-year olds statement "Could I have an attorney? Because that's not me" Was an Unequivocal and Unambiguous Invocation of his Rights
• Preamble to the advisement of rights undermined the subsequent Miranda advisement

1. whether the defendant was in custody;
   
   
2. whether the defendant was free to leave;
   
   
3. whether the defendant was aware of the situation;
   
   
4. whether the police read Miranda rights to the defendant;
   
   
5. whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights;
   
   
6. whether the defendant had an opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to or during the interrogation;
   
   
7. whether the statement was made during the interrogation or volunteered later;
   
   
8. . whether the police threatened [the] defendant or promised anything directly or impliedly;
   
   
9. the method [or style] of the interrogation;
   
   
10. the defendant's mental and physical condition just prior to the interrogation;
    
    
11. the length of the interrogation;
    
    
12. the location of the interrogation; and
    
    
13. the physical conditions of the location where the interrogation occurred.
    

• PDF version of the complete compendium.
  
  
  
  
• The State Map features the most up to date information on pending/enacted legislation and case law, in each state.
  
  
  
• To view the national organizations that have taken formal positions regarding the practice of electronic recording, click here.
  
  
  
• To view the foreign countries that have recording statutes and rules, click here.

1. Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts
   
2. Do not make any promises of leniency
   
   
3. Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences
   
   
4. Do not deny the subject any of their rights
   
   
5. Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs
   
   
6. Always treat the subject with dignity and respect

• Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts
  
  
• Do not make any promises of leniency
  
  
• Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences
  
  
• Do not deny the subject any of their rights
  
  
• Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs
  
  
• Always treat the subject with decency and respect
  
  
• Do not conduct excessively long interrogations
  
  
• Exercise extreme caution when questioning juveniles and individual with mental disabilities

• Court allows surreptitious video recording of incriminating statement into evidence
• Court rules that Dr. Shawn Roberson would not be allowed to testify on false confession issues at trial
• Counsel's failure to retain expert witness on false confessions was matter of reasonable trial strategy
• Social Security Fraud
• Failure to develop and present expert testimony on false confession issues is does not indicate ineffective counsel (value of video taping interrogation)
• Value of video recording to demonstrate confession voluntariness
• Court rejects testimony of forensic psychiatrist that defendant fits the profile of someone who would be susceptible to giving a false confession
• Police are not required to give Miranda advisement of persons they suspect or question, even in a police station, absent custody
• Court rejects the suggestion that a loss of visitation rights was coercive
• Juvenile interrogation - confession volutariness issues
• Repeated implied promises of leniency nullify confession admissibility
• Defendant who scored 53 on IQ test can give a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights
• Court finds confession was result of coercive police interrogation - the importance of using extreme care when questioning an individual with limited mental capacity
• Confession voluntariness and the exclusion of clinical psychologist at guilt phase (value of video recording)
• Pre-arrest silence cannot be used as substantive evidence of guilt

• Investigator's statement that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder did not render confession involuntary
• Video of interrogation demonstrates that juvenile did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights
• Confession rendered involuntary when defendant told he could not get a fair trial because of his race
• Value of recording: Video of interrogation contradicts defendant's claims
• US Supreme Court finds Florida test to determine intellectual disability as factor for eligibility for execution unconstitutional
• Investigators operated at the "outer bounds of permissible conduct"
• Confession was coerced when investigators threatened to have Child Protective Services take defendant's child away
• Defendant claims statements were involuntary because he had been given morphine, hydrocodone and promethazine
• Colorado Supreme Court examines 13 factors that should be considered in evaluating whether a confession was coerced
• "the law permits the police to pressure and cajole, conceal material facts, and actively mislead"
• PA Supreme Court rules that expert testimony of false confessions invades the province of the jury
• Does interrogating a suspect in a police car create a custodial environment?
• Confession voluntariness - lying about the evidence
• Georgia Supreme Court rejects the idea that a suggestion that the shooting was an accident constitutes a hope of leniency
• Court offers scathing rejection of false confession expert Dr. Allison Redlich
• Electronic recording of the confession is not required
• Bible in the interrogation room is not coercive

• Defendant is entitled to discovery of evidence relating to officer's alleged propensity to obtain confessions through coercive conduct
• Standard questions that solicit from the custodial suspect basic identifying information do not require an advisement of rights
• Video identifies improper interrogation - confession suppressed
• Video contradicts defendant's claim he was too intoxicated to waive his rights
• Court confirms that The Reid Technique consists of proper interrogation procedures
• The criteria to be considered in determining custody for a juvenile suspect
• Testimony of Dr. Deborah Davis on false confessions excluded by the court
• Testimony of Dr. Allison Redlich on false confessions excluded by the court
• Undercover agents do not have to advise a suspect of their Miranda rights
• The value of recording an interrogation to demonstrate voluntariness
• Value of recording to demonstrate the totality of circumstances and voluntary nature of incriminating statements
• Investigator should not be allowed to testify about the defendant's credibility
• Denial of juvenile suspect's request to see mother during interrogation did not render the confession inadmissible
• Anatomy of a false confession case
• Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale found not to meet Fry test - there is not acceptance of the GSS in the forensic psychology community
• Combination of assertion the defendant's daughter would suffer without an admission and an implied promise of leniency yield involuntary confession
• Equivocal invocation of rights: "[t]he context of the recorded statement clearly indicates that [Piatnitsky] was willing to speak with the detectives, just not on tape."
• Court should have allowed Dr. Richard Ofshe to testify in general about false confessions
• Investigators did not follow suggested guidelines when interrogating mentally deficient individual as detailed in Reid training manual and text, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions

• Expert testimony on witness credibility excluded
• Confession suppressed because suspect was advised that no matter how many robberies she committed all the sentences would run concurrent
• Court finds that the suspect's physical condition during the interrogation rendered his confession inadmissible
• Threat to arrest defendant's mother and aunt rendered incriminating statement inadmissible
• Statement to the effect that the defendant had a "chance to reduce the potential charges or sentencing" if he showed remorse and confessed did not render the confession inadmissible
• Threatening deportation was coercive
• Court bars Dr. Richard Leo from testifying: proposed area of expert testimony has not reached the "level of scientific reliability"
• The statement to the suspect that "It would be worse for you" if you did not talk to law enforcement was coercive
• Repeatedly threatening a seventeen-year-old with the death penalty is "objectively coercive"
• Video recording protects the confession
• Lying about DNA evidence did not make the confession inadmissible
• Telling a suspect he failed a polygraph test does not render the confession inadmissible
• "Small" interrogation room (10 x 10) was not coercive; suggesting the juvenile victim initiated the sexual contact was not coercive
• Lengthy and persistent questioning does not render a confession inadmissible; accident versus intentional act was a "red herring" but not coercive

• Statement the defendant would be taken home if he was honest did not require exclusion of the statement
• Court expresses concerns interrogation was not recorded
• Value of recording - defendant claimed interrogator's hostile and aggressive tone of voice led to a coerced confessionValue of video recording interrogation
• Detective's statements during the interrogation telling defendant that he thought she was lying were admissible
• Expert testimony allowed on the impact of opiate addiction on confession reliability
• 12-year-old should have been advised of his Miranda rights
• Value of video in protecting a confession
• Referring to Miranda rights as a formality does not jeopardize the waiver
• What level of intoxication renders a confession inadmissible?
• Invocation of defendant's children as a method to get a confession ruled not coercive
• Interrogator's statements that defendant's ability to "speak plainly," "face-to-face" with his "case agent" would be of limited duration and, critically, would evaporate when "the lawyers [got] involved" should be avoided, but do not create a coercive environment

• Witness Credibility
• Statementís such as ìpeople who were honest with the police would be helped differently than those who lied about their guiltî led to an inadmissible confession
• Kansas Supreme Court recommends electronic recording of interrogations
• Court rules that polygraph examination is not a search
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Bruce Frumkin
• Low score on IQ tests does not mean the suspect is incapable of making a voluntary confession
• The value of video recording ñ intoxication and sleep deprivation
• The value of video recording ñ Spanish speaking defendant and intoxication
• California Supreme Court upholds exclusion of testimony by Dr. Richard Leo ñ the proffered testimony was ìextremely speculativeî
• Attorney not negligent for deciding not to use false confession expert at trial
• Improper interrogator behavior
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe on false confession issues ñ no requirement to record interrogation
• A promise of leniency: ì[e]verybody gets a clean slate when they turn 17î
• Court allows Dr. Richard Leo to testify on false confession issues
• Fish and Game officers did not have to make an advisement of rights on a roadside stop
  Click here for Legal Updates Summer 2013

• Counsel was not ineffective for failing to present testimony of false confession expert
• Military Appeals Court upholds decision to exclude testimony of false confession expert ñ Dr. Christian Meissner
• Human Lie Detector evidence
• Recording interrogations not required in Pennsylvania; false confession expert testimony excluded
• Circumstances that indicate juvenile interrogation was not custodial
• Colorado Supreme Court abandons the corpus delicti rule and puts in its place, the trustworthiness standard
• Illinois Supreme Court also addresses the corpus delicti rule
• How much corroboration is needed to support the trustworthiness of a confession?
• Improper offer of leniency nullifies a confession
• When a suspect is not in custody no need to stop questioning when they request an attorney
• ìthe very outer limit as to what tactics law enforcement may employ when performing a custodial interrogationî
• What constitutes mental retardation?
• Court precludes Dr. Richard Ofshe from testifying as an expert witness on false confessions
• Juvenile interrogation ñ voluntariness considerations; value of video recording
• Court rejects the claim that the ìReid techniqueî caused an involuntary confession; jury rejects Dr. Leo testimony
• The value of recording interrogations
• Faulty District Attorney strategy re the advisement of rights
• Value of recording interrogations to discredit defendantís allegations

• July 2012---Attack on Reid technique fails. Failed attempt to prove a false confession.
• June 2012---"Significance of Exculpatory statements from the Stafford homicide"
• May 2012---Offer of help may jeopardize confession admissibility
• March 2012---The balance of power: close the "Sophistication Gap."
• January 2012---"Stick to offence, not defense"
• October 2010---Right to Silence versus The Caution - The mystery
• November 2010---Oct. 8, 2010 - Landmark Decision Day Part I
• November 2010---No cross-border right to lawyer/right to silence: Oct. 8, 2010 ñ Landmark Decision Day Part 2
• May 2009---Admissibility of young person's confession. Traditionally unlawful inducements are not always strong enough to exclude.
• January 2009---The 24-hour Clock: The relationship between sec. 503 C.C. and the duration of an interrogation Part 1

• The value of recording interrogations; implication of a lighter sentence rejected
• No requirement to record interrogation in Second Circuit
• U.S. District Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo: "his theories are both unreliable and irrelevant"
• Value of video recording interrogation: pregnancy did not affect defendant's ability to understand what was going on
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Debra Davis on the issue of false confessions
• Does a request for a lawyer before Miranda warnings are given require the investigators to stop questioning the suspect?
• Statements to the defendant that his denials were "bullshit" and that he was "kind of screwed" and that he was "fucked" were not threats
• Ohio juvenile not statutorily entitled to counsel during an interrogation which occurs prior to invocation of court's jurisdiction
• Can a suspect who claims he was in the "midst of a psychotic break from reality" during the interrogation give a voluntary statement?
• Interrogator's "empathetic and caring demeanor" was not coercive
• Interrogator deception that "crosses the line"
• Fifth Miranda warning not required
• Police do not have to tell suspect defense counsel is present if suspect waived his rights
• The value of recording: examining the issue of mental illness on the admissibility of a confession
• Do statements such as, "these things happen, it is ok"; "we don't believe you had any intentions of doing it" and "a tragic accident occurred" offer a promise of leniency?
• Improper promise of leniency- treatment in lieu of jail

• Court finds that the research by false confession expert Dr. Richard Leo utilized "unreliable methodology" and was prone to inaccuracy or bias
• Jury rejects testimony from Dr. James Waker of false confessions and suggestibility
• Testimony from defense expert Dr. Stark on false confessions excluded
• Court excludes the testimony of defense expert Dr. Bruce Frumkin because it would "lead to confusion and misunderstanding."
• Jury rejects testimony that the Reid Technique risks unreliable and untrustworthy statements
• Supreme Court of New Jersey finds no evidence to suggest that using the Reid Technique when questioning juvenile "deprived A.W. of any of his rights or overbore his will"
• Juvenile confessions - the need to consider the totality of circumstances
• The need to have clear and unequivocal Miranda waiver forms for juveniles
• Interrogator's reference to mitigating circumstances, including the fact that the shooting may have been an "accident" or from a "fit of rage" "fall far short of being promises of lenient treatment in exchange for cooperation"
• "If for some reason you went in [the restaurant] to do a robbery and somehow the gun went off [accident]" was not a statement that suggested leniency
• Lying about evidence such as minimizing the victim's injury, and telling the defendant gun shot residue and eyewitnesses showed that he was the shooter, would not cause an innocent person to confess
• Calling the defendant a liar during an interrogation does not violate the rule which prohibits a witness from giving an opinion on whether another witness is telling the truth
• Incriminating statements admissible even though police deceived defendant about what offenses they were investigating
• Telling a suspect he could be charged with the more serious crime of lying to the police can nullify the confession
• Does the statement that questioning could go the "easy way" or the "hard way" constitute a threat? Not when the statement is viewed in context.
• Confession inadmissible when police tell the suspect (in custody) that he has to hire an attorney in order to have representation during the interrogation.

This valuable resource is a "must have" for those who engage in investigative interviews and interrogations. While it contains advanced material for the experienced investigator, it is also a valuable and ready resource for the beginner in the profession. Well organized and well indexed, the publication walks the reader through the verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral aspects of investigative interviews and interrogations....this publication should be on the desk or nearby shelf for every security or law enforcement professional engaged in investigations.

• "I've given you what I'm gonna give you." "[I] "ain't saying nothing no more" Do these statements represent unequivocal invocations of the right to remain silent?
• Unambiguous request for an attorney: "I mean, but can I call one now? That's what I'm saying."
• What constitutes an implied promise of leniency?
• Hawaiian Constitution does not require recording of custodial interrogations
• The importance of discussing the Miranda rights with a juvenile suspect
• Confession voluntariness - the "totality of circumstances" and the value of recording interrogations
• "If you work with me, we can make these [charges] go away." Does this
• statement constitute a promise of leniency?
• Failure to call a false confession expert does not constitute ineffective counsel
• The value of video recording in determining the ability of a suspect with a low IQ to make a knowing and intelligent waiver
• Telling the suspect that the victim had accused him of a more serious crime is not a coercive tactic - even though the victim had not made such an assertion
• Court considers criteria to determine if a 15-year old student was in custody when questioned by the police at school
• Defendant's confession to two "inmates" who were undercover detectives held admissible
• Court finds that Dr. Richard Leo's proposed testimony potentially confusing and misleading
• Can the police lie to a suspect by telling him that they are not recording the interrogation when they actually are?
• Impermissible promise of leniency
• Confession voluntariness: factors to consider

according to FBI figures, there are 900,000 arrests per year which, over a 23-year period add up to 20 million. [the expert witness] divided this figure by 60, which was the number of confessions that Dr. Ofshe had identified as false in a 1996 article. From this, [the expert witness] concluded that the frequency of false confessions is one hundredth of one percent.

• "Confession at gunpoint: The chain of events affecting admissibility"
• "The balance of power: close the "Sophistication Gap"
• "Three strikes and Statement's out"

• Defendant does not have to actually speak to invoke the right to remain silent
• Statement to suspect that he "should explain his mistake so that his daughter did not have to grow up without her dad" rendered the confession inadmissible
• Suspect told he would "only be a witness if he had merely been present but had not been a shooter." - is this a promise of leniency?
• Court finds testimony from Dr. Bruce Frumkin inadmissible on whether the defendant has a propensity to make a false statement
• Is this statement an unambiguous invocation of the suspect's right to counsel - "I'd like an attorney present. I mean but I can't afford one. So I guess I'll just speak to you now. I don't have an attorney."
• "I don't want to say anything more" is an unambiguous exercise of the defendant's right to silence
• If a juvenile is questioned in a police car, is he in custody? In this case the court said no.
• Rationalizing a defendant's actions (self-defense/accident) in such a way that he "might hope that he would not be charged with murder" did not render the confession inadmissible
• Court finds that interrogators are permitted to use minimization techniques
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo: "the proposed expert testimony was little more than speculation."
• Court does not allow Dr. Richard Ofshe to testify on false confession issues
• Court excludes testimony of social psychologist on false confessions
• Two courts reject the claim of ineffective counsel because an expert witness on false confessions was not called
• Court finds use of a videotape as a prop during an interrogation acceptable
• Interrogating a suspect after continued denials not coercive
• Confession voluntariness: telling defendant length of punishment and misrepresenting evidence
• Fourteenth Amendment does not require law enforcement to videotape custodial interrogations
• Is the request by a 15 year old to speak to their mother (in a custodial setting) tantamount to requesting an attorney?

1. Does your organization video or audio record your interviews?
   • Yes - 190 (67.8%)
   • No - 90 (32.1%)
2. If yes, for the majority of cases, has the recording been
   • Helpful - 176 (90.7%)
   • Detrimental - 8 (4.1%)

• "Testimony of expert regarding interrogation techniques was irrelevant."
• Promise to keep the suspect's name out of the media will not invalidate the confession
• Court finds the proposed testimony on false confessions does not meet the Frye test
• Police should not destroy notes of any pre-interview interrogation
• If properly done a polygraph examination does not have a coercive impact on a suspect's confession
• Polygraph examiner's behavior did not render the suspect's confession involuntary
• 13 hours between waiver and incriminating statements
• "Incessant questioning or demands to tell the truth" do not render a confession inadmissible
• Questioning a suspect four times over a 60-hour period of custody did not render the confession inadmissible
• Is telling a suspect "that if he cooperated and told the truth, he would get more points off his ultimate sentence under the federal Sentencing Guidelines" a promise of leniency that nullifies the confession?
• Leading questions which contain crime details can jeopardize the reliability of a confession
• Failure to offer testimony of a false confession expert was insufficient reason to find trial counsel's performance deficient
• Two and one-half hours between initial interview (and advisement of rights) and the second interview without a re-advisement did not cause the rights to "grow stale."
• 17 hour interrogation not too long while police are still investigating the case
• "I will tell you everything" is not an inculpatory statement
• Is a request to talk to his mother invoking the defendant's right to remain silent?
• Confession found inadmissible - police violated Miranda and improperly misrepresented evidence to the suspect

Criminal Interrogations and Confessions, Fifth Edition presents the Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation and is the standard used in the field. This updated Fifth Edition presents interviewing and interrogation techniques, based on actual criminal cases, which have been used successfully by thousands of criminal investigators. This practical text is built around simple psychological principles and examines interrogation as a nine-step process that is easily understood by the reader.

New and Key Features of the updated Fifth Edition:

• The text contains updated photographs throughout to illustrate behavior symptoms; the proper room setting and positioning; as well the placement of electronic recording equipment.
• Every chapter of the text includes updated information.
• Chapter 9 (Behavior Symptom Analysis) contains new research that has been conducted on the efficacy of behavior symptom analysis, as well as building for the reader the behavioral model of the truthful individual versus the subject who is withholding or fabricating relevant information.
• Chapters 7 through 12 discuss in detail how to build the investigative interview, including the proper use of both investigative and behavior provoking questions, as well as guidelines for evaluating the credibility of allegations, and the proper use of follow-up and bait questions.
• Chapter 15 (Distinguishing between True and False Confessions) has been updated to include new cases throughout and contains two new sections; "The Issue of False Confessions in the Courtroom - The Testimony of Expert Witnesses" and "The Issue of False Confessions in the Courtroom - Court Decisions".
• Chapter 17 discusses all of the legal issues related to interrogation and confession law, including Miranda, the meaning of custody, the use of threats and/or promises, the use of deception, and confession voluntariness. The chapter contains updated legal references including 2011 court decisions.

1. Distinctions between Interviews and Interrogations
2. Obtaining and Evaluating Factual Information
3. Case Solution Possibilities
4. Initial Precautionary Measures for the Protections of the Innocent
5. Privacy and the Interview Room
6. Qualifications, Attitude, and General Conduct of the Investigator

1. Preparation and Starting the Interview
2. Formulating Interview Questions
3. Behavior Symptom Analysis
4. Precautions when Evaluating Behavior Symptoms of Truthful and Untruthful Subjects
5. The Behavior Analysis Interview
6. The Use of Specialized Questioning Techniques

1. The Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation
2. Recommendations for Interrogators
3. Distinguishing between True and False Confessions
4. Testifying on a Confession
5. Interrogation Law

• Court rejects the proffered testimony of Professor Alan Hirsch; no basis to say the Reid Technique enhances the risk of unreliable confessions
• The value of video recording an interrogation ñ discredits defendantís allegations
• Court rules that accident scenario is not coercive
• Does a statement to the defendant that his children would be removed from the house unless he cooperated with the investigation render the confession inadmissible?
• Defense decides not to call Dr. Ricard Leo as an expert witness
• Court rejects claim that defense counsel was ineffective because they did not introduce an expert witness on the issue of false confessions
• Court rejects the testimony of an expert in police procedure regarding the use of the Reid interview technique
• The ìunderwear bomberî did not have to be advised of his Miranda rights due to the public safety exception
• Is a student in custody when he is asked by school officials to accompany the police for questioning?
• What statements constitute a promise of leniency?
• References to religion during an interrogation do not result in a coerced confession
• Juvenile interrogation: The statement that you are ìnot going to be under arrestî and that ì[y]ou're gonna walk out of here one way or the other. * * * You're not under arrest.î was found to be coercive
• Court limits the testimony of expert witness Dr. Samuel Roll on the issue of false confessions
• Does the suspectís invocation of their right to remain silent without the assistance of counsel preclude the police from attempting to obtain incriminating information from them? The Oregon Supreme Court said no.
• Court rejects the testimony of expert witness Dr. Christopher Lamps on the issue of confession voluntariness
• A social worker's interview of juvenile at youth home, during which he confessed to crimes, was not custodial interrogation

• Volume 1 Issue 1 -
• Volume 2 Issue 1 -
• Volume 2 Issue 2

• The Supreme Court holds that a child's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis
• Elements to consider in determining a juvenile's ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights
• 16 year-old's confession upheld - example of factors to consider in juvenile interrogation
• Court rejects the testimony of Professor Alan Hirsch - no evidence the Reid Technique produces false confessions
• Jury rejects the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo
• Dr. Richard Ofshe testifies
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe
• Court rejects psychiatrist Bobby Miller, M.D., as an expert witness on false confessions
• Court does not allow Dr. Karen Fukutaki to testify as an expert witness on confession voluntariness
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Sol Fulero
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Mark Costanzo
• Court rejects expert testimony of defendant's limited mental capacity and suggestibility
• What constitutes a promise of leniency?
• The difference between "limited assurances" and promises of leniency
• If you do not tell the truth, "Life has ended." Does this statement constitute a threat?
• Confession made to company investigators ruled inadmissible because it was the result of a promise not to prosecute
• The detective's statement that "[i]f you admit to things, you make mistakes, you made a bad choice; but if you deny this, in my book, you are a criminal," was merely moral urging...not a promise of leniency
• The statements, "I have no intention of putting you in jail tonight" and "If you have a problem, we can help you.... I promise you, I will do everything I can to help you. " were not promises of leniency.
• Is the statement "...you might be charged with one thing you know there's plea agreements and things they can work out a deal" a promise of leniency?
• Rhode Island Supreme Court decides not to require electronic recording of interrogations
• Can an intoxicated suspect make a voluntary confession?
• Can "days of drug use and sleep deprivation" render a confession inadmissible?
• Three cases address the "objective criteria" for determining custody - US v. Hughes, State v. Campfield and Commonwealth v. Truong
• Does the statement, "You mind if I not say no more and just talk to an attorney about this." represent an unequivocal request for an attorney?
• Does a suspect have to be advised of his Miranda rights after a 15 hour interlude between interrogation sessions?
• Court rules that a "mildly mentally retarded" individual can make a knowing and intelligent waiver
• Characteristics of a defendant who gave a false confession
• Reference to "God forgiving the suspect" did not render the confession involuntary
• There is no expectation of privacy for phone calls in police interview room

The Reid Technique of interrogation consists of essentially three steps. Custody and isolation (i.e., the suspect is detained and isolated, anxiety and uncertainty are generated in order to weaken resistance).Confrontation (i.e., the suspect's guilt is assumed and he or she is confronted with alleged incriminating evidence that may or may not be genuine; denials are rejected, even if they happen to be true, and the consequence of continued denial is emphasized), and minimization (i.e., the interrogator tries to gain the suspect's trust and provides face-saving excuses for the crime, including suggesting that it was an accident or that the victim deserved it)."

• No Federal due process requirement to record the interrogation
• Police must tell suspect undergoing custodial interrogation when his attorney arrives
• Court rejects the testimony of expert witness Dr. John DiBacco on the issue of coercive interrogation techniques
• Suspect asks for an attorney - the interrogation stops - suspect says shortly thereafter he wants to talk without an attorney
• Court rejects the argument made by expert psychologist Dr. Mark Vigen that the defendant was susceptible to police manipulation
• Court upholds confession after suspect told he has two choices - cooperate and we will talk to the DA, don't cooperate and we will not talk to the DA
• The value of recording interrogations
• Police cannot promise drug treatment in lieu of incarceration
• A confession does not constitute a per se bar to establishing a prima facie case demonstrating that DNA testing would establish actual innocence
• The meaning of interrogation - can you tell a suspect he has been implicated in the crime after he has asked for an attorney?
• California Court of Appeals finds that "Dr. Leo's proffered testimony, presented in a vacuum, created a substantial danger of confusing the issues or misleading the jury"
• Does "hope of benefit" nullify a confession?
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Sol Fulero on false confession issues
• Court finds confession inadmissible due to interrogator threats and promise

• Dr. Richard Ofshe
• Dr. Richard Leo
• Professor Saul Kassin
• Mark Castanza
• Dr. Solomon Fulero
• Dr. Jarvis Wright
• Dr. Robert Latimer
• Dr. Allison Redlich
• Dr. Rosalyn Shultz
• Dr. Deborah Davis
• Dr. Christian Meissner
• Dr. Christopher Lamps
• Dr. Gregory DeClue
• Dr. Avak A. Howsepian
• Dr. Bruce Frumkin
• Dr. E. Clay Jorgensen
• Dr. Jeffrey Vanderwater-Piercy
• Dr. Scott Bresle
• Dr. John DiBacco
• Dr. Mark Vigen

• Permissible/Impermissible Police Interrogation tactics - click here
• What constitutes a promise of leniency? - click here
• The use of trickery and deceit during an interrogation - click here
• To what extent does the suspect's IQ impact on his ability to make a Miranda waiver? Click here
• How long can an interrogation last - how many hours - before it becomes coercive? Click here
• How young can a juvenile be to make a knowing and intelligent waiver? Click here
• If an inmate is going to be interviewed about a crime unrelated to what he has been incarcerated for, does he have to be advised of his rights? Click here
• What do the courts say about the testimony of false confession experts? Click here

• Learning disability does not preclude a knowing waiver of the Miranda rights
• Court does not allow the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo; the value of videotaping
• Lying about evidence (number of witnesses that identified suspect) did not render confession inadmissible
• Court rejects confession obtained after a deliberate two-step interrogation approach
• Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Scott Bresler on false confession issues
•  Confession inadmissible when police ignore request for an attorney
• Court rejects confession obtained after suspect was promised by the interrogator that he would testify for the suspect
• Is the statement "Hey man. I don't want to give nothing about nothing." an unambiguous request to remain silent?
• The value of recording interrogations
• When does questioning become custodial?
• Length of interrogation is one factor to consider in the totality of circumstances
• Court rejects forensic psychologist Bruce Frumkin's testimony as to the defendant's ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights
• The value of an electronic recording of the interrogation when a defendant claims that he confessed because he was "susceptible to psychological coercion"
• Telling a suspect that he is lying is not coercive

• Dr. Richard Ofshe
• Dr. Richard Leo
• Professor Saul Kassin
• Mark Castanza
• Dr. Solomon Fulero
• Dr. Jarvis Wright
• Dr. Robert Latimer
• Dr. Allison Redlich
• Dr. Rosalyn Shultz
• Dr. Deborah Davis
• Dr. Christian Meissner
• Dr. Christopher Lamps
• Dr. Gregory DeClue
• Dr. Avak A. Howsepian
• Dr. Bruce Frumkin
• Dr. E. Clay Jorgensen
• Dr. Jeffrey Vanderwater-Piercy
  Click here for the complete article

1. Find the phrase "Right to Silence" in a Canadian statute.
2. Where is the phrase "Right to Silence" printed in the Charter?
3. What statute explains what to say to an arrested person about the "Right to Silence?"

1. You won't find it.
2. Nowhere.
3. None.

• Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the trial court should have allowed false confession expert Dr. Solomon Fulero to testify
• Court rules that interrogation lasting more than 4 hours does not render confession inadmissible, and that exhorting the defendant to be truthful so that "his sins would be forgiven" was not coercive
• Proper handling of a juvenile (13 year old) interrogation
• Dr. Richard Leo's testimony of false confessions properly excluded
• Court up holds Miranda waiver of a 12 year old
• Connecticut Supreme Court declines to require electronic recording of interrogations
• Military court rules that it was error to exclude the testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe on the issue of coercive interrogation techniques
• Telling a suspect that his cooperation would be to his benefit is not coercive, and lying to a suspect about the evidence against him does not render a confession inadmissible
• Iowa Supreme court encourages video taping of custodial interrogations
• Telling the suspect the nature of the charge - capital murder - and that he can help himself by telling the truth does not render the confession inadmissible
• Is the statement "we are here to listen and then to help you out," an implied promise of leniency?
• 10 hour interrogation of a suspect with a low intellect and lacking sleep should have been admissible
• Court rejects defendant's claim that his confession should have been suppressed because he confessed in exchange for a promise of a family visit
• Court limits the testimony of false confession expert Dr. Solomon Fulero
• "[T]here is nothing inherently wrong with efforts to create a favorable climate for confession."
• What constitutes custody for an 11 year old?
• The value of videotaping an interrogation
• The importance of considering the totality of circumstances in deciding the voluntariness of a confession
• Court excludes the testimony of psychiatrist Dr. Robert Latimer
• "What if I want my lawyer present first?" Does this statement constitute a request for an attorney?
• Military court limits the testimony of Dr. Christian Meissner on the defendant's "heightened suggestibility and manipulation" as a result of his interrogation
• Military court upholds the decision to exclude Dr. Richard Ofshe's testimony

1. An adult offender does not have the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
2. The police may ignore the suspect's decision to remain silent while trying to change the suspect's mind about that decision. Invoking the right to silence is not absolute or final.
3. Adult offenders don't have the right to a second opinion - a re-consultation - after they speak to a lawyer, if the nature of the investigation remains unchanged, e.g., the victim dies, thereby changing the severity of the offence.

• Court upholds confession in which investigators lied about the strength of their evidence during interrogation
• Court limits testimony of Professor Saul Kassin on false confession issues
• Court rejects expert testimony of E. Clay Jorgensen, Ph.D.
• How much corroboration is needed in a confession?
• How long is too long for an interrogation?
• Can a 12 year old make an intelligent and knowing waiver of their rights?
• Can a "mildly mentally retarded" individual make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?
• Confession voluntariness - "If you don't tell the truth you will go to jail and lose your family
• Court finds test on suggestibility was "not a valid and reliable test to determine a person's suggestibility to admit to a crime"
• Confession voluntariness - "We are here to help you, we are the only ones who can help you."
• Juvenile interrogation - the importance of discussing the Miranda warnings with the juvenile suspect
• Confession voluntariness - suggesting defendant would receive counseling and lenient treatment if he admitted to the sex offenses did not invalidate the confession
• Confession voluntariness - court rejects the concept of pragmatic implication
• Confession ruled inadmissible when investigators ignored custodial suspect's request to stop
• Juvenile confession found inadmissible
• Police statement that they were not going to pursue any charges against the suspect, after advising him of his Miranda rights, renders the confession involuntary
• Court denies expert psychiatric testimony that, based on defendant's background and the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, he confessed to a crime he did not commit
• Can a person diagnosed as "schizoid paranoid affective schizophrenia" make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their Miranda rights?
• Court listens to but rejects Dr. Richard Leo's testimony that the interrogation was "psychologically coercive and the detectives "went over the line." Also, "suggesting possible justifications for a homicide (such as self-defense) is not coercive."
• Statements like "try to get something going"; I want to help you put your "best foot forward" do not constitute promises of leniency.
• Statements like "being the guy that's not being completely honest" and being the "odd-man out" and "left out in the cold," do not imply a threat or dire consequences.
• Can an interrogator's repeated invocations of offers to help the suspect render a confession inadmissible? Yes.
• Court rejects suppression hearing testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe
• Court does not allow expert testimony by Dr. Jeffrey Vanderwater-Piercy concerning false or coerced confessions
• Court rejects the claim that a coercive environment was created when the investigators mentioned the gravity of the offense and the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence and then told the suspect that if he cooperated he might benefit
• Court excludes the testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe
• A statement to the defendant that "if his girlfriend was charged, and if she stayed in jail, there was a possibility that social services could take her children away" was not coercive
• Value of electronically recording interrogations - "I'm going to hang your ass if you don't start telling the truth."
• Court expresses concerns when the entire interrogation is not electronically recorded
• After a Daubert hearing a trial court rules that Dr. Richard Ofshe's testimony was inadmissible

• Click here for part I
• Click here for part II

1. Establish the subject's normal Behavioral patter and then look for changes from that norm or baseline
2. Read all nonverbal behavior for timing and consistency
3. Read behavioral cluster - the overall behavioral pattern - not single, isolated observations
4. Always evaluate behavior symptoms in conjunction with the case evidence and facts

• Asking an initial open question
• Phrasing open questions
• Eliciting a full response
• Evaluating the response to an open question
• Clarifying the open account
• Asking direct questions
• Asking follow-up questions

• Court upholds confession in which investigators lied about the strength of their evidence during interrogation
• Court limits testimony of Professor Saul Kassin on false confession issues
• Court rejects expert testimony of E. Clay Jorgensen, Ph.D.
• How much corroboration is needed in a confession?
• How long is too long for an interrogation?
• Can a 12 year old make an intelligent and knowing waiver of their rights?
• Can a "mildly mentally retarded" individual make a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?
• Confession voluntariness - "If you don't tell the truth you will go to jail and lose your family"
• Court finds test on suggestibility was "not a valid and reliable test to determine a person's suggestibility to admit to a crime"
• Confession voluntariness - "We are here to help you, we are the only ones who can help you."
• Juvenile interrogation - the importance of discussing the Miranda warnings with the juvenile suspect
• Confession voluntariness - suggesting defendant would receive counseling and lenient treatment if he admitted to the sex offenses did not invalidate the confession
• Confession voluntariness - court rejects the concept of pragmatic implication
• Confession ruled inadmissible when investigators ignored custodial suspect's request to stop
• Juvenile confession found inadmissible

• About Computer Employment Applications (CEA)
• The Value of CEA
• Additional attributes of the CEA
• Primary Areas of Inquiry
• Details on the Areas of Inquiry in CEA Series 705
• CEA Demo
• CEA Development
• What Applicants Say About CEA
• Survey of 4,151 Applicants Who Completed the CEA
• When To Use The CEA Pre-employment Interview
• Using CEA as the Primary Job Application
• Using CEA After the Written Job Application
• Maximizing the Value of CEA
• Research
• Independent research by a U.S. Federal Agency Validates the Effectiveness of the
• CEA Interactive Interview - 566 interviewed
• Study - 130 Applicants Interviewed
• Study - 171 Applicants Interviewed - Federal Bureau of Prisons Study - 209 Consecutive Sheriff Department Applicants
• Study - 147 Applicants for a Financial Institution
• Study - 100 Police Department Applicants
• Study - Comparison of Information from CEA's Drug Interview to the Outcome of the
• Applicant's Drug Test - November 2006
• Comparison of Applicant Substance Abuse Admissions to Probable Urinalysis Test
• Outcomes (Excerpts from Research Study)
• Additional Case Examples of CEA Applicant Interviews
• CEA Report
• Fees

There is nothing problematic or objectionable about police, when questioning suspects, in downplaying or minimizing the moral culpability of their alleged criminal activity. I find there was nothing improper in these and other similar transcript examples where [the detective] minimized [the accused's] moral responsibility. At no time did he suggest that a confession by the subject would result in reduced or minimal legal consequences. Those questions did not minimize the offence anywhere close to the extent of oppression within the meaning of Oickle and other authorities. In using the words "this is your opportunity" to tell your story, and statements to the effect that "your credibility is at its highest now", and in asserting to the accused that he would not be as credible ten months down the road at trial when he had "spoken to lawyers", and the like, the detective was making an approach to the accused's intellect and conscience.

1. Direct Positive Confrontation
2. The Use of Deceit by the Interviewer
3. Minimizing Moral Responsibility
4. Moral Inducements
5. Condemning Others in Order to Ease the Responsibility of the Suspect
6. Commenting on the Accused's Credibility at his Trial
7. Highlighting the Accused's Redeeming Qualities
8. Quid Pro Quo
9. Comments on the Legal Process
10. Right to Silence
11. Power Imbalance

• Court rejects testimony of Dr. Richard Leo on false confession issue
• Expert testimony on fabrication of confessions by inmate informants rejected
• Court rejects claim confession was involuntary due to marijuana and alcohol use
• Court upholds Miranda waiver by 15 year old
• Court upholds Miranda waiver of 14 year old
• Appeals court reverses admissibility of a confession from an 11 year old because of the interrogator's behavior
• Ambiguous request to stop the interrogation - "this conversation is over"
• Ambiguous request for an attorney - "I don't know if I need an attorney or not"
• Court rejects claim that officers created an environment that caused defendant's will to be overborne
• Court finds that interrogator conduct "overbore" defendant's will and rules that the confession is inadmissible
• "Custody does not occur merely because the suspect submits to and fails a polygraph test"
• Confession suppressed when suspect questioned in his home without Miranda advisement
• Telling the suspect that the prosecutor will be advised of their cooperation does not constitute a promise of leniency; suggesting the homicide was an accident or self-defense was not coercive
• What constitutes a threat during an interrogation?
• What constitutes permissible deception by the police during an interrogation?
• A fake polygraph test did not render involuntary the defendant's incriminating statement
• Can an interrogator tell a suspect "this is just between you and me" when, in fact, the interrogation is being recorded and the recording will be used against the suspect?
• What IQ score precludes a defendant from making a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?
• No federal requirement to electronically record interrogation
• Confession ruled inadmissible because of faulty advisement of rights
• Juvenile's confession ruled inadmissible because of several violations of the Texas Family Code
• Confession found inadmissible due to threats and promises from the investigators
• Court rejects opinion of defense expert, Dr. Christopher Lamps, on coerced confession and waiver of rights issues
• Value of video taping the interrogation
• Court finds confession inadmissible because the Miranda rights were not properly explained to the defendant - a 15 year-old with "borderline intellectual functioning"
• Interrogators misrepresentation of evidence is insufficient to make the otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible
• Interrogator's repeated references that he could help the suspect rendered the confession involuntary
• The interrogator's implication of leniency in exchange for cooperation is not coercive
• Telling the suspect that if he tells the truth it could be in his benefit to do so and exaggerating the strength of the evidence against him does not render a confession involuntary
• Court refuses to let Dr. Jarvis Wright testify on false confessions
• Court rejects claims that there was an unambiguous request for an attorney; that the defendant's mental problems caused him to be more receptive to police coercion; and, that the fact the police lied about the evidence was coercive