Week 4 Flashcards
Interview
Purpose: to gain info
Interrogation
Purpose: to obtain a confession
- > admission: “I was there” -> suspected more
- > confession: “I did it”
Interrogate the person suspected of the crime
Police can use deception and lie about evidence against you
Confession
“I did it”
Most probative and damaging evidence against
- more impact than eyewitnesses and character testimonies
- > FALSE confession more damaging than evidence
Not always indicative of guilt
Miranda Rights
Miranda shown in biased lineup
Arizona v. Miranda- criminal case against Miranda (convicted and sentenced)
Miranda v. Arizona- Miranda’s appeal case
Az supreme court upheld conviction based on Escobedo v Illinois
-> US Supreme Court overturned conviction (later retried and convicted, creation of Miranda Rights)
Limitations to Miranda Rights
Must be CLEAR that you want to lawyer
-no ambiguity (Davis v. US)
Parent who wished to involve Rights for child must not be ambiguous (Ricky Mitchell v. New York)
Silence in and of itself does not mean that you’ve invoked you Rights (Berghuis v. Tompkins)
Police use specific interrogation techniques to get around Miranda
Making an informed waiver of rights rests on three abilities
Understanding the words/phrases
An accurate perception of what these Rights allow (Rights supersede police power)
Capacity to reason about the likely consequences of waiving or invoking rights
Individuals with difficulty understanding their rights
Juveniles (particularly under age 14)
-> 9% invoked Rights, 91% talked to police
Mentally challenged or of lower intelligence
% waive Rights and talk to police?
75-80 %
Innocent suspects waiver Rights more often (81%) than guilty suspects (36%)
Sympathetic strategy by police is most effective
Why they waive their Rights
Guilty
-to appear innocent
Innocent
-believe truth will set them free
Interrogation techniques: Reid technique
Isolated, about 4 hours
small, bare, soundproof room
invade personal space during
one-way mirror
Steps (custody and isolation, confrontation, minimization/maximization- good cop/bad cop)
- confront
- justify or excuse crime
- interrupt denial
- overcome suspects objections
- ensure they do not tune you out
- show sympathy and understanding
- offer face-saving alternatives
- have suspect recount details
- have suspect give full, written confession
Presumption of guilt
“You did it. We know you did it. We have overwhelming evidence to prove you did it. But the reason makes a difference, so why don’t you tell me about it?”
Appeal to suspects self interests is #1
Intentional errors for correction by suspect in written confession
To prevent suspect from coming back later and claiming something about it was inaccurate
Exaggerated/manufactured evidence
Police can legally lie about evidence they supposedly have against suspect
Martha Puebla
Used her as fake eyewitness, and told suspect all about her.
He put a hit out on her -> murdered
False confessions: Voluntary
Fake self-incriminating statement given to police, with NO external pressure to do so from police
Example- Kidnapping of Lindbergh’s baby
Reasons:
fame and notoriety
aid and protect actual perp
False confessions: Coerced-compliant
Confession induced through police interrogation, but don’t believe they have done crime
Example- Central Park jogger
Reasons:
Escape an aversive situation
Avoid an implicit threat
Gain an implied reward
False confessions: Coerced-internalized
Confess and come to believe they ACTUALLY committed the crime
Example- Paul Ingram (possessed by devil), Crowe
Reasons:
Anxious, tired, confused, subject to highly suggestive methods of interrogation
Interrogating minors
Use same techniques as with adults
- assume they are qualitatively different than other minors (monsters)
- > more vulnerable (increased risk of false confession)
Four ways to know it is a false confession
1) No crime actually occurred
2) Physically impossible for suspect to have committed the crime (in jail, proof somewhere else, out of state)
3) Actual perp is ID (most common for exonerations)
4) Scientific evidence that definitively establishes innocence (DNA most common)
False confession age and length of interrogation
35% false confessions from minors
18-24; 27%
25-39; 30%
Most confessions obtained between 6 to 24 hours
Recording interrogations
Most states do not require
Provide
- objective and accurate account
- can prevent coercive tactics
- can protect police against defense claims of coercion
- less time taking notes for police
Child witnesses
May be only witness to crime (sexual abuse case)
Reluctant to report (<50% when first suspected because external evidence)
Reliability of Child’s testimony
McMartin preschool case
-> false allegations called reliability into question
Age related differences
Clear developmental trend
- Preschoolers (3-5) less accurate than older children (school aged) and adults
- Children under 6 most suggestible
Compared with older children (7-12), younger children (3-5):
- provide less detailed, complete and consistent reports of emotional and stressful events
- more prone to forgetting over time
- more susceptible to suggestion
Factors than increase susceptibility
Younger age
Interviewer bias (demeanor, confirmation bias)
Reinforcing responses
Use of specific and/or misleading questions
Repeated questioning
Forensic props (anatomical dolls & drawings)
-use end of interview, after free recall
Interviewer bias
Confirmation bias
- gather only confirmatory evidence and ignore info that is inconsistent with original hypotheses
- elicit false reports
Bruck et al.
-interviewed kids (3 party, 1 colored)
4th produced twice as many errors
Even when denied attending party, 84% interviewers reported all 4 went to party
Reinforcing responses
Reinforcement can lead to agreement with misleading information (mundane 35% fantastical 52%)
Ideal interview
Neutral and friendly interviewer
First interview with neutral interviewer tends to be most accurate
Type of questions
Free-recall/ open-ended (most likely to be accurate)
Leading questions introduce info that was never previously mentioned by the child
-specific (yes-no or forced choice)
-misleading (contain inaccurate info)
-> false reports tend to be elicited by misleading questions repeated within and across the interviews
Repeated questioning
Common for children to be interviewed over long delays
Formal interview (police, CPS, etc.) Informal interview (siblings, therapists, non offending parents, etc.)
Risks:
- prior suggestions from previous interviews can become incorporated into later reports
- demand characteristics: may feel interviewer did not like or agree with first report
Forensic props (anatomical dolls & drawings)
Children younger than 3.5 have trouble using dolls as symbols of themselves (preschoolers more accurate when using own bodies than dolls)
Same problems with drawing that you get from using dolls
General guidelines for interviewing children
Adapt interview to child’s developmental level
Build rapport (build relationship)
Videotape interview
Private environment with minimal distractions
Start with free recall and open-ended questions
-only use specific questions after free recall has been exhausted
Give children practice telling about an event (before discussing allegation)
Give example of lying vs telling the truth
Clear ground rules
-OK to say I don’t know or don’t remember
-correct interviewer if say something wrong
-ask for clarification is needed
-tell truth
Remain objective and neutral
Avoid suggestive techniques
Avoid reinforcement
Take time for closure (debrief)
-need because more distress -> worse functioning
Factors associated with resistance to suggestion
Higher intelligence (better language ability)
Event knowledge (if know what will happen in interview/event, will do better)
Less creative and imaginative children
Cultures that do not emphasize deference to adults
Higher socioeconomic status (SES)
Children of sensitive and responsive parents
Children in courts
Developmentally age-inappropriate techniques
- legalese
- -> Accuracy is higher when more simplified versions of questions are asked (for everyone)
Rights of accused vs victim
- right of accused to face witness
- -> without, jury biased toward guilt of defendant
- -> may be distressing event for child witness
CCTV -less believable -less accurate -less attractive -less intelligent -less confident BUT not more likely to convict or acquit
Heresay witness
evidence admitted on behalf of child victim
-less credible
-jury less likely to convict defendant
Coy v. Iowa
Overturned conviction because not able to confront witness face-to-face
Visual separation violated defendant’s 6th amend right
Maryland v. Craig
Right to face-to-face confrontation should be evaluated on case-to-case basis
