Interrogations Flashcards
What is Defense Experts view on Characteristics of Interrogations?
The following is taken from a report prepared by Dr. Richard Leo on a contested confession case in Wisconsin (Brendan Dassey). It is representative of how many defense experts describe the interrogation process:
A. “The sole purpose for custodial interrogation is to elicit a confession. Contemporary American interrogation methods are structured to persuade a rational person who knows he is guilty to rethink his initial decision to deny culpability and instead choose to confess.”
B. “The first step of successful interrogation consists of causing a suspect to view his situation as hopeless. The interrogator communicates to the suspect that he has been caught , that there is no way he will escape the interrogation without incriminating himself, and that his future is determined - that regardless of the suspect’s denials or protestations of innocence, he is going to be arrested, prosecuted convicted and eventually incarcerated.”
C. “The second step of successful interrogation consists of offering the suspect inducements to confess - reasons or scenarios that suggest the suspect will receive some personal, moral, communal, procedural material or other benefit if he confesses to some version of the offense.” There are three forms of such inducements:
“Low-end inducements refer to interpersonal or moral appeals the interrogator uses to convince a suspect that he will feel better if he confesses.”
“Systemic inducements refer to appeals that the interrogator uses to focus the suspect’s attention on the processes and outcomes of the criminal justice system in order to get the suspect to come to the conclusion that his case is likely to be processed more favorably by all actors in the criminal justice system if he confesses.”
“High-end inducements refer to appeals that directly communicate that the suspect will receive less punishment, a lower prison sentence, and/or some form of police, prosecutorial, judicial, or juror leniency if he complies with the interrogator’s demand that he confess.”
What is the Reid Technique?
In the early 1960s, ex-police officer/polygraph expert John E. Reid and lawyer/criminologist Fred E. Inbau collaborated on a psychological method of interrogation called the Reid Technique. This method of interrogation would usher in a new era in accusatory interrogation. This new model is based on psychological manipulations utilizing isolation, confrontation, and minimization of culpability and consequences.
The accusatory method establishes control over the suspect by leaving them alone in a small claustrophobic room before interrogation, has the interrogator ask accusatory and close-ended questions that reflect the police theory of what happened, and has the officers evaluate body language and speech, in order to determine if the suspect is lying.
What is the General Reid Response to the Defenses General Characterization of Interrogations?
Reid’s Response (the following are excerpts from the full response)
We certainly take issue with the stated purpose of an interrogation being to elicit a confession. On page 4 of our training manual we state that the objective of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a suspect, not a confession. (We also make the same point in our book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 4th edition, 2001)
There are a number of possible outcomes of a successful interrogation other than obtaining a confession. Some of these are: (1) The suspect is innocent; (2) The suspect did not commit the offense under investigation but lied about some aspect of the investigation (motive, alibi, access, etc.); (3) The suspect did not commit the offense under investigation but knows who did. Throughout an interrogation the investigator’s goal is always to learn the truth.
Leo states that the first step of an interrogation is to convince the suspect that his situation is helpless. This is an outright false statement. This statement or goal never appears in our text books or seminar manuals. On page 49 of our training manual we teach the opposite, that it is improper to tell the suspect that he is facing inevitable consequences. We reference cases where innocence people falsely confessed because the investigator convinced the suspect that he would suffer consequences regardless of his denials. On page 64 we offer information on how to identify truthful from deceptive denials and, on that same page, acknowledge that sometimes innocent suspects are mistakenly interrogated.
As to the second step of the process, any successful interrogation technique must offer the guilty suspect a real or perceived benefit of telling the truth. This is fundamental to persuasive communication and, on a daily basis, the average person is bombarded with incentives designed to influence their behavior. Whether the message is to buy a particular product, get a medical checkup, or watch a particular television program, all persuasive arguments involves a promise of benefit with one choice and adverse consequences with another choice.
Common law recognized that some promises of benefit or threats of adverse consequences may cause an innocent person to confess. Examples include promises to avoid a lengthy sentence or threats of physical pain if the suspect does not confess. These would fit the description of what Leo calls, “high-end inducements.” Countries whose criminal justice system is based on common law forbid interrogation procedures that involve inflicting, or threatening to inflict pain or discomfort onto a suspect in an effort to obtain a confession…..Very simply, an investigator cannot offer or imply a promise of lenience in exchange for a confession.
Applying legal standards, Leo’s description of low-end inducements are certainly legal and are advocated in the Reid Technique. The high-end inducements are clearly illegal in the United States as well as Canada and we teach investigators not to use these tactics. There are multiple references to these illegal interrogation tactics in both our training manual as well as our text, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions.
This leaves “systemic inducements” which are designed to get the suspect to come to the conclusion that if he confesses, his case may be processed more favorably by the criminal justice system. From the interrogator’s perspective, of course, this is desirable and yet the interrogator cannot mention or imply a benefit of more favorable treatment in exchange for telling the truth. It is perfectly legal, however, to allow the suspect to form his own conclusion that he may benefit in some way by telling the truth.
What makes the Reid Technique Effective?
The Reid Technique uses three powerful techniques that are designed to make the suspect believe that confessing to the crime is in their best interest.
1 – Isolation: The suspect is isolated in a windowless interrogation room with the aim of making them feel vulnerable and alone.
2 – Maximization: The officer begins by stating that the suspect is guilty beyond doubt. They will then present a theory of the crime (sometimes with evidentiary support, other times completely fabricated) that includes details that the suspect can regurgitate to the officer. Through the course of the interview, the officer is firmly asserting the suspect’s guilt and ignoring any claims of innocence. This is the “bad cop” portion of the interview.
3- Minimization: After the officer has made it clear that any claims of innocence will not be believed or accepted, the “good cop” portion of the interview begins. The officer pivots and adopts an understanding tone, and understates the crime in order to convince the suspect to admit wrongdoing. The officer offers absolution, and a release from the suspect’s guilt and shame. If the suspect confesses, the officers hint at lesser charges, or a chance to go home, as an alternative to risking indefinite incarceration.
How many steps are in the Reid Technique?
Nine (9)
What is Step One of the Reid Technique?
Step One: Direct Confrontation of the Suspect - The investigator informs the suspect that the evidence clearly demonstrates the person’s guilt.
The direct interrogation of the suspect is usually conducted by a team of officers, each playing a different role. However, there may be instances where one officer will do the entire interrogation.
The interrogation is very accusatory, with the officer telling the suspect that the investigation clearly shows they committed the crime. The entire interrogation is primarily a monologue of accusations with supposed evidence indicating the suspects guilt. This typically involves presenting the suspect with false evidence of guilt. Such false evidence could include claims of a co-defendant having confessed, physical evidence existing connecting the accused to the crime, or lying about the results of a polygraph test. Thus, deceit is an essential part of the Reid Technique of interrogation.
While so confronting the suspect, the interrogator or team of officers will be observing the suspects behavioral reactions. A passive reaction to the accusations is usually viewed as evidence of guilt or deception by the suspect. Spontaneous, forceful, and direct denials are considered indicators of innocence.
Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
Direct Positive Confrontation
A. Presentation of fact synopsis to suspect.
B. Reference to evidence, real or fictional.
C. Suspect is told that he is involved in the crime.
D. Behavioral observation of suspect.
E. Restatement of confrontation, stronger or weaker.
What is Step Two of the Reid Technique?
Step Two: Theme Development - In a sympathetic manner, the investigator presents a moral justification, or “theme”, for the offense, such as attributing the act of committing the crime to outside circumstances, or placing the moral blame on someone else.
Police interrogators are taught that they must present a moral justification or theme for the offense in an effort to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances. The interrogator presents, in a sympathetic, monologue manner, the themes which contain reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. The reason could be as simple as the youth of the accused. The objective is to give the suspect a way to accept responsibility for their wrong by either avoiding blame for their actions, or by allowing the suspect to minimize the seriousness of their actions. This kind of theme development is most effective with people who have a guilty conscience for some non-criminal reason, are emotional, had a bad childhood or upbringing, or are just young or immature or psychologically cant handle the situations they are in.
Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
Theme Development
A. Transition phases from confrontation.
B. Propose reasons that will justify or excuse the commission of the crime.
C. Behavioral assessment of suspect to choose proper theme.
D. Longest portion of 9 steps.
What is Step Three of the Reid Technique?
Step Three: Handling Denials
Denials by a suspect must be stopped. Every time a suspect starts to deny or tries to explain their denial, the interrogator must interrupt, pointing out the ridiculousness of the denial, or accusing the suspect of not listening to the evidence the police have gathered. If necessary, the police officer should change the subject, e.g., point out another piece of evidence of guilt. To not interrupt the suspect’s denial gives the advantage psychologically to the accused.
To accomplish Step Three, the police usually use a good-cop/bad-cop type of role-playing. The purpose of the role-playing is to get the suspect to be open and responsive to the friendly officer. This technique works well with quiet or unresponsive subjects.
Try to minimize the frequency of suspect denials.
Handling Denials
A. Both guilty and innocent deny the crime at issue.
B. Starts during direct positive confrontation.
C. Absence of denials in step two indicates probable guilt.
D. Interrogator recognizes and stops denial before it is complete.
E. Progress is indicated by cessation or weakening of denials.
What is Step Four of the Reid Technique?
Step Four: Overcoming Objections
When attempts at denial do not succeed, the suspect will often give various objections or reasons in support of their innocence. For example: I would never steal from my company because I love my job. Such logic-based denials give the interrogator an opportunity to turn the denial against the suspect. Further, most police officers believe an innocent person will continually give the same denial or reasons, while a guilty suspect supposedly will continually attempt to reason their way out of the accusation. Once the accused sees their reasons are not being accepted, the suspect will usually start to withdraw and cease responding to the interrogator. For the psychological interrogation to be successful, this must not be allowed to happen.
At this point the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move toward the acknowledgement of what they did.
Overcoming Objections
A. Suspect proposes a reason why he allegedly did not commit the crime.
B. Normally offered by only the guilty.
C. Indicates progress in the interrogation if given after denials.
D. Handled differently than denials by first listening and accepting.
E. Proper handling of objections helps overcome the subject’s defenses.
What is Step Five of the Reid Technique?
Step Five: Retention of Participation
When the suspect becomes passive or starts to withdraw, the accused is at their lowest point psychologically. The interrogator looks for signs of surrender: an emotional outburst, the suspect placing their head in their hands, or shaking their head without speaking. In this moment of hopelessness, the officer reaches out to the suspect as an understanding ally. One way the interrogator can do this is to close the physical distance between the officer and the suspect. A simple consoling touch, along with reassuring statements of sympathy and understanding of why the crime was committed, will draw the suspect back to the officer. The officer should always look the suspect in the eyes and, using their first name, try to get the accused to re-engage.
Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
Getting the Suspect’s Attention
A. Suspect is on defensive and is tense and confused. B. The themes will work only is suspect is listening.
C. Interrogator reaches peak of sincerity in his speech.
D. Physical closeness and use of verbal techniques to command attention.
E. Physical gestures of sincerity are used to establish attitude of understanding and
What is Step Six of the Reid Technique?
Step Six: Handling the Suspects Passiveness
As the interrogator re-engages with the suspect, the central theme of why the suspect committed the crime should be emphasized, along with statements of sympathy and understanding of why the crime was committed. The suspect should be told to tell the truth, be remorseful, and confess because it is the right thing to do. Every effort will then be made to break down the suspects remaining resistance, such as going through the evidence against them.
The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme of the discussion toward offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
The Suspect Quiets and Listens
A. The physical signs of surrender begin to appear.
B. The themes are shortened and lead toward alternatives.
C. Establishment of eye contact is most important at this point by verbal and physical
D. Tears at this stage positively indicate the suspect’s guilt.
What is Step Seven of the Reid Technique?
Step Seven: The Presentation of Alternatives
At this point, the interrogator presents two alternatives as to why the suspect committed the crime. The first alternative is more callous and socially unacceptable. The other alternative is more understandable and face-saving but just as incriminating. Here are examples:
1) Isn’t it true you needed the money because you could not find a job? or
2) Isn’t it true you did not plan the crime out; it just happened spontaneously? or
3) Isn’t it true you need psychological help to overcome the evil inside you?
The interrogator may follow the more face-saving alternative with a supporting statement that encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable alternative. In any event, the suspect’s choice is a confession and psychological acceptance of the interrogator’s theme as to why the accused acted criminally.
Pose the “alternative question,” giving two choices for what happened—one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option, but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. As stated earlier, there is always a third option that is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
Alternatives
A. Non-threatening to suspect they concern some minor aspect of the crime.
B. Gives choice between acceptable reason and unacceptable reason for committing the
C. One alternative is stressed to lead subject to choose the positive alternative.
D. Either choice is an admission of guilt.
What is Step Eight of the Reid Technique?
Step Eight: Suspect Orally Confesses
The initial acceptance of either alternative, no matter how small the acceptance may be, must now be developed into a full confession. The police are taught that they should immediately respond with a statement acknowledging the admitted facts. The officer should then engage the accused in a basic review of the events of the crime, obtaining statements that corroborate the validity of the accused’s confession. The officer may suggest how the crime was committed. This process may continue for as long as it takes to get a solid confession. It is important that the suspect is alone with the interrogator during this time. The presence of another person may discourage the suspect from talking about the crime.
Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
Bringing the Suspect into the Conversation.
A. The acceptance of one alternative is reinforced by the interrogator.
B. The suspect is encouraged to talk about aspect of the crime.
C. The use of realistic words is introduced by the interrogator.
D. Initial corroboration of the confession is begun.
E. Oral witnessing of admissions by two persons.
What is Step Nine of the Reid Technique?
Step Nine: The Written Confession
Since many suspects later deny their confession or say it was coerced, the police must attempt to get a signed written confession. In a court of law and to jurors, a signed confession is considered to be stronger than an oral confession. When the suspect appears averse to a written confession, the officer may ask the suspect to write a letter to the victim asking forgiveness for the crime committed.
Document the suspect’s admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video, or written).
The Written Confession
A. Reduction of oral statement into written, typed, or electronically recorded form.
B. Voluntariness of statement is established along with corroboration of details.
C. Suspect’s signing of statement is witnessed by two or more persons.
What should be done in the Post Interrogation Interview of the Reid Technique?
Post Interrogation Interview
A. Provides a method to determine technique effectiveness.
B. Keeps guilty suspect in proper frame of mind during typing of formal statement.
C. Allows interrogator to calm down an innocent suspect who was confronted.
