Chapter 5: Interviewing and Interrogation

INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS

-If possible, put yourself at the wheelchair user's eye level. -Do not lean on a wheelchair or any other assistive device. -Never patronize people who use wheelchairs by patting them on the head or shoulders. -Do not assume the individual wants to be pushed, ask first. -Offer assistance if the individual appears to be having difficulty opening a door. -If you telephone the individual, allow the phone to ring longer than usual to allow extra time for the person to reach the telephone.

FALSE CONFESSIONS

-A false confession is an admission of guilt followed by a narrative statement of what, how, and why the confessor committed the crime. -Over the years, confessions have been proven false in a number of ways -When it is discovered the confessed crime was not committed -When new evidence shows it was physically impossible for the confessor to have committed the crime -When the real perpetrator, having no connection to the defendant, is captured and implicated -When DNA and scientific evidence affirmatively establishes the confessor's innocence. -Through these methods, and contrary to the belief that people do not confess to crimes they did not commit, the pages of American history reveal large numbers of men and women who were wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, and sentenced to death on the basis of false confessions. -Within the U.S. CJS, the post conviction cases discovered by the Innocence Project and others do not include the false confessions that are disproved subsequent to arrest but before trial, that result in a false guilty plea, to minor crimes that attract no postconviction scrutiny, and those that involve juveniles in which confidentiality provisions are in place. -From descriptive analyses of specific instances and associations, one cannot draw conclusions about the causes of false confessions. -Case studies of this nature have proven invaluable in the development of this area. -Kassin and Wrightsman introduced a taxonomy that distinguished among three types of false confessions: 1. Voluntary 2. Coerced compliant 3. Coerced internalized

INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS WITH COGNITIVE DISABILITIES

-A successful interaction with a person who has developmental disabilities can yield accurate and useful info while, at the same time, protecting his or her rights as an individual. -If you are in a public area with many distractions, consider moving to a quiet or private location. -Be prepared to repeat what you say, orally or in writing. -Offer assistance completing forms or understanding written instructions, and provide extra time for decision making. -Wait for the individual to accept the offer of assistance; do not "overassist" or be patronizing. -Be patient, flexible and supportive. -Take time to understand the individual, and make sure the individual understands you.

THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

-After the use of such recordings, the next-best form is a signed statement written in the first person by the suspect in his or her handwriting. -Frequently, it is not possible to convince a suspect to prepare such a statement. -Or the suspect cannot write. -Other forms in which statements may be admitted into evidence are: -A typed or handwritten statement by someone else that is signed in the accused's own hand -A typed or otherwise prepared statement that the accused does not sign but that is acknowledged in front of witnesses -The oral testimony of a person who was present and overheard the subject give a confession or admission In the last case, even though admissible, the testimony is likely to carry little weight with the jury. -The form and content of a written statement includes a heading, the data identifying the circumstances under the statement was taken, body of the statement, and a verification. -The statement should open with an indication of the time and place where it was taken, and identification of the person giving the statement that includes his or her name, address, and age. -The heading must also include a definite statement to the effect that the subject is giving the statement freely and voluntarily after having been advised of his or her constitutional rights. -The body of the statement, acknowledges the subject's involvement in the crime under investigation, be phrased in the first person, allowing the suspect to include his or her own ideas in a free-flowing manner. -If this is not possible or practical, then the question-and-answer format is permissible. -The terminology used should include the words, grammar, idioms, and style of the person making the statement. -The body of the statement should be arranged so that its content follows the chronological order of the subject's involvement in the case under investigation. -At the end, the statement should indicate the suspect has read the statement or has had it read to him or her, that its contents and implications are understood, and that the suspect attests to its accuracy. -Other suggestions for the interrogator to keep in mind include: - Each page of the statement should be numbered consecutively with an indication that it is page X of X pages. -If the pages get separated, they can later be easily restored to order. -The interrogator should ensure each page is initialed by the subject. -If the subject is unwilling to sign, the statement should be acknowledged by him or her. -If the subject cannot write, another identifying mark may be used. -On occasion an interrogator may encounter someone who says, "I'll tell you what I've done, but I'm not writing anything and I'm not signing anything." -In such circumstances, the interrogator can explain that the suspect confessed and the interrogator or some person who heard the confession can go into court and testify about it. -By preparing or signing a statement, the suspect protects himself or herself against the interrogator's testifying to something more damaging by changing the story in court -If the suspect cannot read, the statement must be read to him or her, and the interrogator must ensure the suspect understands its contents before the suspect is allowed to attest to its accuracy. -All errors in the statement should be corrected on the final copy and initialed by the suspect. -The interrogator may accommodate the suspect by allowing small errors if this will help obtain the suspect's initials on each page of the statement. -The interrogator should make sure the suspect understands all words used in the statement. -If words are confusing, their meanings should be explained to the suspect and the suspect should be required to explain them back in front of witnesses in order to confirm this understanding. -During the process of drafting and attesting to a statement derived through interrogation, there should be at least 1 additional witness who can testify to the authenticity of the statement and the circumstances it was obtained. -After the suspect signs the statement in ink, the witnesses should sign their names, addresses, and positions.

PART 2: SIGNS OF DISCOMFORT IN AN INTERACTION

-All of these eye manifestations are clues as to how info is registering or what questions are problematic for the recipient. -However, they are not necessarily direct indicators of deceit. -Little or no eye contact is not indicative of deception. -Predators and habitual liars engage in greater eye contract than most and will lock eyes with the person they are communicating with. -Research shows psychopaths, con artists, and habitual liars will increase eye contact and it is consciously employed by these individuals, because they are aware it is so commonly believed by many that looking someone straight in the eye is a sign of truthfulness. -However, it is important to understand that there are cultural differences in eye contact and eye-gaze behavior that must be considered in any attempt to detect deception. -EX: Individuals such as Latinos, Asians, and Middle East are taught to look down or away when being questioned by individuals in a position of authority. -This is considered to be a gesture of respect and deference. -Head movements can be revealing. -If a person's head begins to shake in the affirmative or in the negative as they are speaking, and the movement occurs simultaneously with what they are saying, then the statement can be relied upon as being truthful. -If, however, the head shake or head movement is delayed or occurs after the speech, then likely the statement is contrived and not truthful. -Although it may be subtle, the delayed movement of the head is an attempt to further validate what has been stated and is not part of the natural flow of communication. -Honest head movements should be consistent with verbal denials or affirmations. -If a head movement is inconsistent with or contrary to a person's statement, it may indicate deception. -While involving more subtle rather than exaggerated head movement, this verbal and nonverbal signals happens more often than we think. -EX: Someone may say, "I didn't do it," while slightly nodding his or her head in the affirmative. -During discomfort, the limbic brain takes over, and a person's face can conversely flush or lighten in color. -During difficult conversations, the investigator may see increases in perspiration or breathing, accelerated pulsation of the carotid artery, and the person noticeably wiping away sweat or trying to control his or her breathing in an effort to remain calm. -Any trembling of the body, of the hands, fingers, or lips, or any attempt to hide or restrain the hands or lips, may be indicative of discomfort and deception, if it occurs after the period of normal nervousness should have been dissipated. -However, indications of nervousness do not necessarily mean deception. -A person's voice may crack or seem inconsistent when being deceptive; swallowing becomes difficult as the throat becomes dry from stress and the person begins to swallow hard. -These can be evidenced by a sudden bob or jump of the Adam's apple and may be accompanied by the clearing or repeated clearing of the throat, all indicative of discomfort. -EX: Many honest people who testify in court display these behaviors because they are nervous and not because they are lying. -Even after years of testifying, many law enforcement officers still acknowledge they get nervous on the witness stand. -Thus it is important to remember that signs of tension and stress need to be deciphered within the context in which they are occurring.

BENEFITS OF RECORDING FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND PROSECUTORS

-An electronic recording of suspect interrogation has proven to be an efficient and powerful law enforcement tool. -Audio is good, but video is better. -Both methods create a permanent record of exactly what occurred. -Recordings prevent disputes about the investigator's conduct, the treatment of suspects and the voluntariness of statements they made. -Investigators are not called on to paraphrase statements or try later to describe suspects' words, actions, and attitudes. -Instead, viewers and listeners see and hear precisely what was said and done, including if suspects were forthcoming or evasive, changed their versions of events, and appeared sincere and innocent or deceitful and guilty. -An electronic record is law enforcement's version of instant replay. -Experience shows that recordings dramatically reduce the # of defense motions to suppress statements and confessions. -The record is there for defense lawyers to see and evaluate -If the officers conduct themselves properly during the questioning, there is no basis to challenge their conduct or exclude the defendants' responses from evidence. -Officers are spared from defending themselves against allegations of coercion, trickery, and perjury during hostile cross examinations. -The use of recording devices, even when known to the suspect, does not impede investigators from obtaining confessions and admissions from guilty suspects. -When suspects decline to talk if recorded, the investigators simply turn the recorder off and proceed with taking handwritten notes. -Recordings permit investigators to focus on the suspect rather than taking copious notes of the interview. -When investigators later review the recordings they can observe inconsistencies and evasive conduct they overlooked while the interview was in progress. -Electronic recording forces investigators to better prepare for conducting interrogations by: -Clarifying if an interrogator missed something that requires further questioning -Giving prosecutors a better understanding of cases, fostering better charging decisions, plea-bargaining options, and case preparation -Minimizing challenges by defense attorneys about the accuracy of the electronic recordings and completeness of written confessions -Reducing doubts about the voluntariness of confessions -Refreshing the investigators' memories when they are testifying. -Tapes can be reviewed and used as training aids for less experienced investigators who are attempting to develop their interrogation skills.

THE WITNESS

-If the interview is to be conducted with a witness other than the victim, the interviewer should find out as much about the witness as possible before the interview. -This includes learning about the witness's motivations and perceptions and any barriers that might exist. -In some cases it might be advantageous to determine if a witness has a previous criminal record.

INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING

-Before speaking, get the person's attention with a wave of the hand or a gentle tap on the shoulder. -Face the person and do not turn away while speaking. -Try to converse in a well-lit area. -Do not cover your mouth or chew gum. -If a person is wearing a hearing aid, do not assume he or she can hear you well. -Minimize background noise and other distractions whenever possible. -When you are communicating orally, speak slowly and distinctly. -Use facial expressions to reinforce what you are saying. -Use visual aids whenever possible such as pointing to printed info on a citation or other document. -For those who are deaf or hard of hearing, only one-third of spoken words can be understood by speech reading. -When communicating in writing, keep in mind some individuals who use sign language may lack good English reading and writing skills. -If someone with a hearing disability cannot understand you, write a note to ask them what communication aids or service are needed. -If a sign language interpreter is requested, be sure to ask via a note which language the person uses. -American Sign Language (ASL) and Signed English are the most common. -When interviewing a witness or a suspect or engaging in any complex conversation with a person whose primary language is sign language, a qualified interpreter is needed to ensure effective communication. -When using an interpreter, look and speak directly to the deaf person and not to the interpreter. -Talk at your normal rate or slightly slower if you normally speak fast. -Only one person should speak at a time. -Use short sentences and simple words. -If you telephone an individual who is hard of hearing, let the phone ring longer than usual. -Speak clearly and be prepared to repeat the reason for the call and who you are. -If you do not have a Text Telephone (TTY), dial 711 to reach the national telecommunications relay service, which facilitates the call between you and the individual who uses a TTY.

In every criminal investigation process, interviewing and interrogation are the most important means of obtaining needed info about a crime.

-Both require a combo of artistry and skill that must be cultivated and practiced. -However not all people who possess info needed by the investigator are willing to share it. -This is true in both interviews and interrogations. -Witnesses may have various motivations and perceptions that can influence their responses during an interview. -Their motivations and perceptions may be based on conscious choices or subconscious stimuli. -In addition, gaining info from specific demographic groups such as the elderly, those who do not speak English, and persons with physical infirmities requires unique skills on the part of the investigator. -Situational characteristics such as the time and place of the interview or interrogation also create challenges to eliciting info about a particular case. -Each of these conditions must be effectively addressed in both interview and interrogation settings. -The successful interviewer or interrogator must fully understand the techniques of both and be able to evaluate the psychological reasons why people are willing or reluctant to impart information.

WITNESS INTIMIDATION

-Citizens who witness or are victimized by crime are sometimes reluctant to report incidents to the police or to assist in the prosecution of offenders. -Such reluctance may be in response to a perceived or actual threat of retaliation by the offender or his or her associates, or the result of generalized community norms that discourage residents from cooperating with police and prosecutors. -In some communities, close ties b/w witnesses, offenders, and their families and friends also deter witnesses from cooperating; these relationships can provide a vitally important context for understanding witness intimidation. -Particularly in violent and gang-related crime, the same individual, at different times, be a victim, a witness, and an offender. -Historically, witness intimidation is closely associated with organized crime and domestic violence, but has recently thwarted efforts to investigate and prosecute drug, gang violence and other types of crime.

DEFINING SIGNS OF COMFORT

-Comfort is readily apparent in conversations with family members and friends. -Individuals who are comfortable display their bodies openly, showing more of their torsos and the insides of their arms and legs (they allow ventral access or fronting). -In the presence of strangers, comfort is difficult to achieve, in stressful situations such as a formal interview or a deposition. -This is why it is so important for the investigator to create a comfort zone from the very outset and to facilitate beneficial interaction with the person to be questioned. -When we are comfortable, there should be synchrony in our nonverbal behavior. -The breathing rhythm of two comfortable people will be similar, as will the tone and pitch of their speech and their general demeanor. -If a person is standing while talking to someone, leaning to the side with their hands in their pockets and feet crossed, likely the person they are talking to will do the same. By mirroring (isoparaxis) another person's behavior, they are subconsciously saying "I am comfortable with you" -In an interview setting or any situation where a difficult topic is being discussed, the tone of each party should mirror the other's over time if there is synchrony. -If harmony does not exist b/w the people involved, synchrony will be missing, which will be discernible. -They sit differently, talk in a manner or tone different from each other, or at the their expressions will be at odds. -Asynchrony is a barrier to effective communication and is a serious obstacle to a successful interview or discussion. -Displays of comfort are more common in people speaking the truth because there is no stress to conceal, and no guilty knowledge to make them uncomfortable. -Thus, the investigator should still be looking for signs of discomfort when they occur and in what context to assess for possible deception.

DETECTION OF DECEPTION

-Identifying deceit is so difficult that studies begun in the 1980s show that most people, including judges, attorneys, clinicians, police officers, FBI agents, politicians, teachers, mothers, fathers, and spouses are no better than chance when it comes to detecting deception. -Most people, professionals, do no better than a coin toss at correctly perceiving dishonesty. -Even those who are truly gifted at detecting deception are seldom right more than 60% of the time. -There is no single behavior that is indicative of deception -This does not mean we should abandon our efforts to study deception and observe for behaviors that, in context, are suggestive of it. -But a realistic goal is to be able to read nonverbal behaviors with clarity and reliability.

COMPUTER VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS

-Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) was originally developed in 1988 by the National Institute for Truth Verification (NITV) and grew out of the Vietnam-era Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), which was used to differentiate between suspected Viet Cong and civilians. -Around 1,600 police departments use the CVSA. The CVSA is small, easily portable, and, unlike the polygraph, does not require any attachments to the subject. -Basically, the CVSA notes microvariations in the audible and nonaudible portions of speech. -As with the polygraph, reports of its accuracy have varied—for example, one laboratory study found that it was not significantly better than random chance, whereas NITV cited a number of studies showing much higher rates. -Here, too, the earlier comments about the absence or presence of real jeopardy affecting the studies' outcomes apply. -The NITV spent many years and invested tremendous resources to develop an automated system to accurately quantify CVSA patterns with the goal of removing any subjectivity in evaluating CVSA charts. -A new scoring algorithm has been developed and field tested in state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. -The charts under this new CVSA II (Figure 5-15), which was released in January 2007, reflect whether deception is or is not indicated. -Field evaluations are showing a 96% accuracy rate for the new system, with a false positive rate of less than 1%.

Custody

-Custody occurs when a person is deprived of his or her freedom in any way or is not free to leave the presence of law enforcement. -Analyses of case decisions show there is not yet a universally accepted definition of custody. -Rather, case by case analysis is used to determine the applicability of the Miranda requirements.

DOCUMENTING INTERROGATIONS

-Documenting an interrogation consists of three main phases: 1. Note taking 2. Recording 3. Obtaining written statements. -All three are geared to accomplishing two basic functions: 1. Retaining info for the benefit of the interrogator and the continued investigation 2. Securing a written statement or confession from the accused for later use as evidence in court.

THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

-Eyewitness identification and other info provided by eyewitnesses to a criminal event are relied on heavily by law enforcement and courts in the investigative and adjudication stages of our system of justice, yet research indicates that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence and causes more miscarriages of justice than any other method of proof. -Research and courtroom experience provide evidence that an eyewitness to a crime is being asked to be something and do something that is not easily accomplished. -Existing research does not permit precise conclusions about the overall accuracy of the eyewitness identifications that are a common feature of criminal prosecutions, but research does lead to conclude that identification errors are not infrequent. -Such errors are borne out by case studies in which use of DNA evidence exonerated people who had been convicted on the basis of eyewitness identification. -Many factors influence an individual's ability to accurately recognize and identify persons, and all of them depend on the circumstances under the info is initially perceived and encoded, stored, and retrieved. -Eyewitness identifications take place in a social context in which the witness's own personality and characteristics with those of the target observed, are as critical as factors relating to the situation or environment in which the action takes place. -Thus, human perception and memory are selective and constructive functions, not exact copies of the event perceived. -The gaps will often be filled in by the observer in order to produce a logical and complete sequence of events. -A person is motivated by a desire to be accurate as he or she imposes meaning on the overabundance of info that impinges on his or her senses, but also by a desire to live up to the expectations of other people and to stay in their good graces. -The eyes, the ears, and other sense organs are, therefore, social organs as well as physical ones. -The gender, age, expectations, intelligence, race, and facial recognition skills of the witness are factors that individually may or may not influence the eyewitness identification process but collectively or in combo with other variables are likely to have a bearing. -Facial attractiveness and distinctiveness, disguises, facial transformations, and the gender and race of the target (the person identified) are factors likely to influence identification. -Situational factors include the presence of weapons, duration of the exposure, and significance of the event in relation to all surrounding circumstances.

INTERROGATION AS DEFINED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

-For legal purposes, interrogation includes any express questioning or any verbal or nonverbal behavior by a law enforcement officer that is designed to elicit an incriminating statement or response from the suspect of a crime. -For years following the Miranda ruling, there was confusion over what constituted questioning or interrogation. -EX: In a 1977 case the Supreme Court found that an impermissible interrogation occurred when an investigator delivered what has been called the "Christian burial speech" to a man suspected of murdering a young girl. -While the suspect was being transported b/w cities, the investigator told the suspect to think about how the weather was turning cold and snow was likely. -He pointed out how difficult it would be to find the body later. -The investigator went on to say that the girl's parents were entitled to have a Christian burial for the little girl, who had been taken from them on Christmas Eve and murdered. -Subsequent to this speech, the suspect led the investigators to the spot where he had disposed of the body. -The Supreme Court held this to be an interrogation within the scope of Miranda, even though direct questions had not been asked of the suspect. -The Supreme Court faced the question of what constitutes interrogation for the first time in the 1980 case of Rhode Island v. Innis. -In that instance a robbery suspect was arrested after the victim had identified him from photos. -The prisoner was advised several times of his constitutional rights and was being transported by 3 officers who had been ordered not to question the suspect. -During the trip, 2 of the officers were having a conversation about the case, and 1 commented how terrible it would be if some unsuspecting child found the missing shotgun used in the robbery and got hurt. -The conversation was not directed at the suspect, nor did the officers expect a response from the suspect. -However, the suspect interrupted the conversation after again being advised of his rights, led the officers to the shotgun. -Miranda warnings need not precede routine booking questions that are asked in order to obtain personal-history data necessary to complete the booking process. -As long as the questions are for that purpose and not a pretext to obtain incriminating information, Miranda warnings need not be given.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF FALSE CONFESSIONS

-Given that false confessions do occur, police administrators need to ensure their investigators are trained in interrogation techniques that elicit accurate and truthful info from suspects. T The following recommendations will reduce the possibility of a false confession 1. Use police skill teams. -The teams should consist of seasoned interview specialists who, through training and actual interview experiences, possess the skills necessary to conduct successful critical interviews. 2. Provide mandatory police training. -Investigators must be made aware of the circumstances under which false confessions may be obtained. -These include: A. The suspect's desire to eliminate friends, relatives, and close associates from the investigative process B. The suspect's attempt to distract police from identifying other motives and suspects through a false confession, usually fraught with inconsistencies. C. Situations in which officers provide too much info to the suspect, which the suspect may later repeat as part of a false confession. -These include the date, time of death, location of the offense, specific positioning of the body, wounds to the body, instrumentation of death. -Unless this kind of specific info has been released to the public by the media or other source then only the police and person(s) committing the crime should possess this kind of info. 3. Provide mandatory police training on special interview considerations in dealing with populations vulnerable to false confessions. -These include juveniles, mentally impaired, and individuals under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. 4. Police agencies in the past have been involved in wrongful convictions based on false confessions should review existing policies and make changes to eliminate the problem. 5. Mandate that police conclude the interview by asking a series of questions that emphasize the voluntariness of the confession that is, no coercion was used and the suspect was not under the influence of alcohol and drugs. -Interviews should be concluded with questions that firmly establish the fairness and professionalism of the interviewing investigators. -A simple, effective way to achieve this result is by asking: -"Why did you decide to talk to me?" -"Why did you decide to talk to me now?"

INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS WITH SPEECH IMPAIRMENTS

-If you do not understand something the individual says, do not pretend that you do. -Ask the individual to repeat what he or she said and then repeat it back. -Be patient. Take as much time as necessary. -Try to ask questions that require only short answers or a nod of the head. -Concentrate on what the individual is saying. -If you are having difficulty understanding the individual, consider writing as an alternative means of communicating, but first ask the individual if this is acceptable.

FORMS OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION

-Implicit threats, looks, or gestures -Explicit threats of violence -Actual physical violence -Property damage -Other threats, challenges to child custody or immigration status -Confronting witnesses verbally -Sending notes and letters -Making nuisance calls -Parking or loitering outside homes of witnesses -Damaging witnesses' houses or property -Threatening witnesses' children, spouses, parents, or other family members -Assaulting or murdering witnesses or their family members -Threats are more common than actual physical violence and are just as effective in deterring cooperation -Although some witnesses experience a single incident of intimidation, it may involve an escalating series of threats and actions that become more violent over time. -Other witnesses do not experience intimidation directly, but believe retaliation will occur if they cooperate with police. -Either way, they are deterred from offering relevant info that might assist the police and prosecutors. -Particularly in communities dominated by gang and drugrelated crime, residents have seen offenders are capable of violence and brutality. -Many witnesses believe offenders will return to the community after brief periods of incarceration or will be able to arrange for intimidation by others while they are incarcerated. -In many cases the experience of actually having witnessed violence by the perpetrators or groups of individuals in the community lends considerable credibility to any threats and creates a general sense of fear that discourages cooperation with police.

THE DELAY-IN-ARRAIGNMENT RULE

-In 1943 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another decision concerning the admissibility of confessions. -Even though the free and voluntary rule was in effect in both the federal and state courts, another series of statutes seemed to have gone unheeded. -Every state and the federal government had legal provisions requiring that after arrest a person must be taken before a committing magistrate "without unnecessary delay." -Before 1943, if there was an unnecessary delay in producing the accused before a committing magistrate, the delay was one of a # of factors the courts were required to take into consideration in determining if the confession was freely and voluntarily given. -The facts of McNabb v. United States reveal that McNabb and members of his family were involved in bootlegging. -They were arrested after the murder of federal officers who were investigating their operation in Tennessee. -McNabb was held incommunicado for days before he was taken before a committing magistrate. -He subsequently confessed, and the confession was admitted into evidence at his trial. -He was convicted, but on appeal to the Supreme Court the conviction was reversed. -The Court held that the failure of federal officers to take the prisoner before a committing officer without unnecessary delay rendered his confession inadmissible. -The significance of this case is that for the first time the Court indicated that failure to comply with this procedural requirement would render a confession inadmissible regardless of if it was obtained freely and voluntarily. -Thus, instead of examining the facts of the case to determine the voluntariness of the confession, the Court ruled, as a matter of law, that the procedural violation rendered the confession inadmissible. -The holding in the McNabb case was emphatically reaffirmed in 1957 by the Supreme Court in Mallory v. U.S. -As the mandate of the Supreme Court in the McNabb and Mallory cases had applicability only to federal prosecutions, the states were free to interpret their own statutes on unnecessary delay as they saw fit. -Few chose to follow the McNabb-Mallory delay-in-arraignment rule. -The majority have continued to require that there must be a connection between the failure of law enforcement to produce the accused before a committing magistrate without unnecessary delay and the securing of a confession.

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA

-In Miranda v. Arizona the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, spelled out the requirements and procedures to be followed by officers when conducting an in custody interrogation of a suspect. -In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. -After being identified by the victim, he was questioned by police for several hours and signed a confession that included a statement indicating that the confession was given voluntarily. -The confession was admitted into evidence over the objections of Miranda's defense counsel, and the jury found him guilty. -The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the conviction and held that Miranda's constitutional rights had not been violated in obtaining the conviction because following the ruling from Escobedo v. Illinois the year before, in which Escobedo's confession was ruled to have been improperly admitted b/c he asked to see his lawyer but was denied that right, Miranda had not specifically requested counsel. -The U.S. Supreme Court, in reversing the decision, attempted to clarify its intent in the Escobedo case by spelling out specific guidelines to be followed by police before they interrogate persons in custody and attempt to use their statements as evidence. -In clarifying the requirements of Escobedo, the Court felt compelled to include the 5th Amendment requirements against self-incrimination in the decision. -The guidelines require that after a person is taken into custody for an offense and before any questioning by law enforcement officers, if there is any intent to use a suspect's statements in court, the person must first be advised of certain rights -These rights include: 1. The right to remain silent. 2. The right to be told that anything said can and will be used in court. 3. The right to consult with an attorney before answering any questions and the right to have an attorney present during interrogation. 4. The right to counsel. If the suspect cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT- INVOCATION

-In filing his motion to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation, Thompkins first argued he had invoked his right to remain silent by not saying anything for the first 2 hours and 45 minutes of the interrogation. -If, in fact, he had invoked his right to remain silent, it is undisputed the officers would have been obligated to stop questioning. -However, Justice Kennedy, in writing the majority opinion, explained that Thompkins' mere silence in the face of questioning was not clear and unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent. -The Court noted that, unlike its earlier ruling in Davis v. U.S. regarding the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel, it never had defined whether an invocation of the right to remain silent must be unambiguous. -In Davis, the defendant initially waived his Miranda rights and was interrogated for 90 minutes before saying, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." -The Court held that if a subject is unclear, ambiguous, or equivocal in requesting a lawyer, officers can ignore the reference and proceed with the interrogation. -In Berghuis, the Court acknowledged "there is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. -Both protect the privilege against compulsory self incrimination. by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked." -The Court explained there are no practical reasons for requiring that an invocation of the right to silence be clear and unambiguous. -Namely, "an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights results in an objective inquiry that avoids difficulties of proof and provides guidance to officers on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity.'" -Berghuis does for the invocation of the right to silence what Davis did for the invocation of the right to counsel, it mandates that an invocation of either Miranda right must be clear and unambiguous to be effective.

ESTABLISHING A COMFORT ZONE FOR DETECTING DECEPTION

-In pursuing the detection of deception investigators must be aware of their impact on the actions of suspects being interrogated and recognize how their behavior will affect the other person's behavior. -How the investigator asks the question (accusingly), how the investigator sits (too close or not close enough), how the investigator looks upon the person (suspiciously), will either support or disrupt the suspect's comfort level. -It is well established that if a person's personal space is violated, he or she will have a tendency to act nervous. -If a person is questioned in a prosecutorial tone, this will likely negatively intrude on the questioning process.

COERCED-INTERNALIZED FALSE CONFESSIONS

-Internalized false confessions are those in which innocent but vulnerable suspects confess and believe they committed the crime in question, a belief that is accompanied by false memories. -Gudjonsson has argued this kind of false confession results from "memory distrust syndrome," people develop a profound distrust of their own memory that renders them vulnerable to manipulation from external cues. -Kassin likened this process of influence to the creation of false memories seen in psychotherapy patients. - In both situations, an authority figure claims a privileged insight into the individual's past, the individual is isolated from others and in a heightened state of malleability, and the expert ultimately convinces the individual to accept a painful self insight by invoking concepts like dissociation or repression. -The case of 14 year old Michael Crowe, whose sister was stabbed to death, illustrates this. -After lengthy interrogations, Michael was misled by lies into thinking there was physical evidence of his guilt, he concluded he was a killer: "I'm not sure how I did it. All I know is I did it." -Eventually, he was convinced he had a split personality, that "bad Michael" acted out of jealous rage while "good Michael" blocked the incident from his consciousness. -The charges against Crowe were later dropped when a drifter from neighborhood was found with the victim's blood on his clothing.

OBJECTIVES OF INTERROGATION

-Interrogation as opposed to interviewing is designed to match acquired info to a particular suspect in order to secure a confession. -While interviewing is primarily for the purpose of gaining info, interrogation is the process of testing that info and its application to a particular suspect. -There are 4 commonly recognized objectives in the interrogation process: 1. To obtain valuable facts. 2. To eliminate the innocent. 3. To identify the guilty. 4. To obtain a confession. -As the investigator moves from the preliminary task of gathering valuable facts to the concluding task of obtaining a confession, there is an increase in the difficulty of acquiring info. -That difficulty, however, is rewarded by an increase in the value of the information. -In attempting to obtain a confession from a suspect, the interrogator also gains info about the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of an offense. -In seeking such info the investigator must be concerned with asking the basic questions that apply to all aspects of the investigative process: -Who? -What? -Where? -When? -How? -Why?

OBJECTIVES OF INTERVIEWING

-Interviews are conducted in criminal cases for the purpose of gathering info from people who have, or may have, knowledge needed in the investigation. -The info may come from a victim or from a person who has no other relationship to the criminal activity other than being where he or she was. -Interviewing is a planned conversation with a specific goal. -The job of the investigator-interviewer is to elicit from the witness info actually perceived through one or more of the witness's five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. -In any given case, any or all of a witness's senses may be involved. -EX: A case involving a drug-related killing, a witness may see the perpetrator pull the trigger, hear the victim scream, smell the pungent odor of marijuana burning, taste the white powdery substance later identified as heroin, and touch the victim to feel for a pulse. -Because witnesses report perceptions based on their own interests, priorities, and biases, obtaining accurate and voluntary info is not as easy to obtain as it may first appear. -Investigators must always be sensitive to any of the psychological, physical and environmental influences as well as the motivations affecting witness perceptions. -At the outset of the interview, the person to be interviewed must satisfy three requirements of being a witness: 1. Presence 2. Consciousness 3. Attentiveness to what was happening -Presence and consciousness are easy to establish in the interview process -Attentiveness is more difficult. -Yet all three elements are important to establishing the accuracy of a witness's perception.

WHY PEOPLE CONFESS

-It has been estimated that 80% of all people will confess to a crime. -There are two basic categories of people who tend to confess to crimes: 1. Guilty parties who psychologically need to "get if off their chest" 2. Persons who are not guilty but who act under some urge to confess. -It is to protect the latter category of people that procedural safeguards are provided. -EX: A conviction cannot be based solely on a confession. -There must be other independent corroborating evidence to support the conviction. -The psychological and physiological pressures that build in a person who has committed a crime or who suffers from feelings of guilt concerning any other type of conduct are best alleviated by communicating. -Talking is the best means of communicating. -In spite of having been advised of certain protections guaranteed by the Constitution, some feel a need to confess. -Even confirmed criminals suffer from the same pangs of conscience as first-time offenders. -Fear of the potential punishments that await them contributes to their silence. -Those who confess rarely regret it, for doing so gives them peace of mind. -It permits them to look at themselves and life differently and to live with themselves. -Most guilty individuals who confess are, from the outset, looking for the proper opening during an interrogation to communicate their guilt to the interrogator. -The good interrogator will seek out and be able to recognize individuals who desire to confess and approach the interrogation to provide the accused with the proper opening and reason for the relief of the psychological and physiological pressures that have built up. -If it is human nature to talk, if people cannot keep secrets, then the job of the interrogator is to make it easy for a suspect to confess.

SUSPECT'S RESPONSE: WAIVER AND ALTERNATIVES

-It is common practice for the officer to ask the suspect if he or she understands the rights as they have been explained. -If the answer is yes, then the officer may ask if the subject wants to talk with the officer. -At this point, four alternatives are open to the suspect: 1. The suspect may choose to remain silent, not wanting even to respond to the officer's question. -The courts have held that choosing to remain silent does not imply consent to be interrogated and no questions should be asked. 2. The suspect may request counsel. -At that point, the investigator must not undertake any questioning of the suspect, anything said will not be admissible in court. -In Edwards v. Arizona in 1981, the Supreme Court held that no police initiated interrogation may lawfully take place once the suspect has invoked the right to counsel until an attorney has been provided or unless the defendant voluntarily begins to talk with the officers. -In Minnick v. Mississippi in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court held that once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease -Officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel being present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his or her attorney. -The requirement that counsel be made available to the accused refers not to the opportunity to consult with a lawyer outside the interrogation room but to the right to have the attorney present during custodial interrogation. -This rule is necessary to remove suspects from the coercive pressure of officials who try to persuade them to waive their rights. -The rule provides a clear guideline to the law enforcement profession. 3. The suspect may waive his or her rights and agree to talk with law enforcement without the benefit of counsel. -The waiver of rights is a sensitive topic for law enforcement, as it is the responsibility of law enforcement and the prosecutor to prove in court the waiver was validly obtained. -A valid waiver must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given by the suspect. -The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the suspect was properly advised of his or her rights, that those rights were understood, and the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived those rights before the court will allow the introduction of any incriminating testimony in the form of a confession. -The waiver cannot be presumed or inferred. -It must be successfully proved by the prosecution. -Therefore, it is preferable for the investigator who secures a waiver of rights from a suspect to attempt to get the waiver in writing with sufficient witnesses to substantiate its voluntariness. -Most law enforcement agencies also attempt to get individuals in custody to sign a rights waiver form as one more step to show a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the Miranda ruling. However, a suspect who has waived his or her rights is free to withdraw that waiver at any time. If this occurs during questioning, the investigator is under a legal obligation to cease the interrogation at that point and either comply with the suspect's request for representation or simply cease the interrogation if the suspect refuses to talk. 4. The suspect may indicate a desire not to talk with the investigators. -At this point, law enforcement has no choice other than to refrain from attempting to interrogate the suspect concerning the events of the crime for which he or she has been arrested. -In this event, the case must be based on independent evidence, which may or may not be sufficient to warrant prosecution. -The U.S. Supreme Court's emphatic position on terminating interrogation once a suspect has invoked the right to remain silent was announced in 1975 in the case of Michigan v. Mosley.

THE OFFENSE

-It is necessary that the interviewer know specifically what crime or crimes were allegedly committed. -This knowledge includes a working familiarity with the elements of each offense and some understanding of the kind of info necessary to prove each. -Accurate info on the date, time, place, and method of the crime, including tools used, points of entry and exit, method of travel to and from the scene, complete description of any property involved, weapons used, modus operandi, and physical evidence recovered is essential. -The interviewer should obtain a full description of the crime scene and the surrounding area. -In addition, any and all possible motives should be identified.

TIME, PLACE, AND SETTING OF INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATION

-Law enforcement officers conduct interviews in a number of situations. -The most common is the on-the-scene interview. -Whether it is a routine traffic accident investigation or a major felony case, officers who respond to the scene should, at the earliest possible moment, seek out and identify individuals who may have knowledge of the event and whose info may contribute to the investigation. -Such individuals, include victims and other participants as well as uninvolved witnesses. -Once witnesses have been identified, they should be separated from one another and, as much as possible, isolated from other people who may be loitering in the area. -This prevents the witnesses from seeing or hearing irrelevant matters that may taint their actual knowledge. -All witnesses should be interviewed as soon as practical, while their memory is still fresh, but this rule must be applied with discretion to take into account all circumstances. -Although convenience of the witness is important to a successful interview, the interviewer need not relinquish the psychological advantage in selecting the time and place of the interview. -It is not a good practice, to rouse a witness from bed in the middle of the night. -However, there are certain psychological advantages to questioning a witness at a law enforcement agency rather than in the witness's own home or office. -A witness may feel in a better position to control the interview in familiar surroundings. -The investigator cannot let this happen; he or she must be fair but always be in command of the situation. -After taking into account the factors of immediacy, privacy, convenience, and control, and weighing the importance of each in the context of the total circumstances, the investigator may decide to interview witnesses at their homes or places of business. -As a matter of courtesy, the investigator should attempt to make an appointment to ensure convenience, particularly for professional and businesspeople. -Others, such as salespeople, office workers, and laborers, may be interviewed during working hours with approval of their supervisors. -Privacy is of the utmost importance in conducting interviews. -Distractions tend to have an adverse effect on the interview and its results. -The interviewer should insist on as much privacy as possible, but the circumstances of on-the-scene interviews often have to be recognized as a fact of life for the investigator, who can be expected to perform only to the best of his or her ability in the given case. -Similarly, investigators are called on to canvass neighborhoods and interview residents. -In these instances, investigators are in no position to influence the conditions under which the interview takes place. -Noisy children, blaring TV's, nosy neighbors, and similar factors must be accepted. -The physical and emotional states of the witnesses are important when one is conducting or determining whether to conduct an interview. -Cold, sleepy, hungry, physically uncomfortable, or intoxicated people generally prove to be unsatisfactory witnesses. -Persons suffering noticeable emotional problems can give, at the most, highly questionable information. -Most investigators can recognize this state and will wisely choose to wait until the witness becomes lucid before conducting the interview. -Age is also an important factor to consider when conducting the interview of a witness.

DOCUMENTING INTERVIEWS

-Note taking during an interview raises two primary concerns for the interviewer. 1. It may be distracting or suspicious to a witness; witnesses may be reluctant to give information knowing it is being documented. -Consequently, the investigator should tell witnesses that notes will prevent the need for subsequent interviews owing to lapses of the investigator's memory. -This explanation reduces the reluctance of the witness. 2. The interviewer should avoid becoming preoccupied with taking notes, this creates the appearance of inattentiveness. -As important as notes may be, the interviewer should treat them as less important than conversation with the witness. -Note taking during the interview should be kept to a minimum, recording only salient details. -As soon as possible after the interview, the investigator should complete the notes, before their memory wanes. -It is desirable for witnesses to write or sign statements concerning the events of which they have knowledge. -In many jurisdictions, law enforcement officers are authorized to administer oaths so that such statements are sworn or affirmed. -The theory is that a victim or witness would be more inclined to be truthful if they are under oath and aware that charges of perjury could be lodged against them at a later date if they were determined to be lying. -The best form of documentation is electronic sound recording or a sound and visual recording of the interview. -Visual recordings are not practical when the interview is held anywhere other than at a law enforcement agency, where equipment can be permanently situated. -Audio recorders are inexpensive, portable, and helpful in the majority of cases. -The recorded interview has many advantages: -All info is recorded in the witness's own words -Details are not left to be recalled by human memory -Concerns about detracting from the interview by note taking are absent -Interviewers listen to the verbatim conversations over and over at a later time to be sure they have understood and accurately what was said -The taped interview avoids unnecessary reinterviews.

RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

-On June 1, 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the area of Berghuis v. Thompkins was decided and shines light on issues surrounding the invocation and waiver of the Miranda right to remain silent. -In Berghuis, Van Chester Thompkins was arrested in Ohio for a shooting that occurred 1 year earlier in Southfield, Michigan. -While in custody, Thompkins was questioned by 2 detectives in a police interview room. -At the beginning of the interrogation, the detectives presented Thompkins with a general set of Miranda warnings. -To make sure Thompkins could understand English, 1 of the detectives asked Thompkins to read a portion of the warnings out loud, which he did. -Thereafter, the detective read the rest of the warnings to Thompkins and asked him to sign the form, indicating that he understood his rights. -Thompkins refused to sign the form, and the officers began interrogating Thompkins. -"At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say he wanted to remain silent, did not want to talk to the police, or wanted an attorney." -With the exception of some minor verbal responses and limited eye contact, Thompkins remained silent for most of the 3-hour interview. -2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, 1 of the detectives asked Thompkins if he believed in God. -Thompkins said he did. -The detective then followed up by asking Thompkins if he prayed to God. -Thompkins said, "Yes." -The detective then asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" -To which, Thompkins answered, "Yes." -Thompkins refused to make a written statement, and the interrogation ended.

COERCED-COMPLIANT FALSE CONFESSIONS

-People may be induced to confess through the processes of police interrogation. -In false confessions, the suspect capitulates in order to escape a stressful custodial situation, avoid physical or legal punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. -Based on a review of cases Gudjonsson identified concrete initiatives for this type of confession, such as not being allowed to sleep, eat, make a phone call, go home, or, in drug addicts, the need to feed a drug habit. -Like the classical forms of influence observed in psychological studies of conformity, compliance, and obedience to authority, this type of confession is an act of public capitulation and compliance and by a suspect who knows he or she is innocent but perceives that the short-term benefits of confession outweighed the long-term costs. -This phenomenon was illustrated in the 1692 Salem witch trials, which women confessed to witchcraft -In Brown v. Mississippi, a case in which 3 black tenant farmers confessed to murder after they were whipped with a steel studded leather belt -Central Park jogger case in 1989, 5 New York City teenagers confessed after lengthy interrogations, each claiming he expected to go home afterward. -All the boys were convicted and sent to prison, only to be exonerated in 2002 when the real rapist gave a confession that was confirmed by DNA evidence.

The success of an interview or interrogation depends on a number of personal characteristics and commitments of the investigator.

-Planning for and controlling the events surrounding both interviews and interrogations are important but are more critical to the success of an interrogation. -Establishing rapport, asking good questions, listening carefully, and keeping proper documentation are elements common to both forms of obtaining information. -Myriad legal requirements pertain to interrogations but are absent in interviews. -Because of the criticality of confessions and their use in obtaining convictions, numerous legal guidelines and standards apply in interrogations that would not be needed in interviewing witnesses or victims. -It is far more likely that a hostile and adversarial relationship will exist between an interrogator and a suspect than between an interviewer and a victim or witness.

PREINTERROGATION LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

-Pre interrogation legal requirements became concern during the 1960s. -As a result, the Supreme Court handed a landmark decision that affected the conditions which interrogations take place. -The issue revolved around the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination and the 6th Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel, both made applicable through due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS

-Prior to 1936, the only test for the validity and admissibility of a confession or admission was its voluntariness. -However, the determination as to if it was given voluntarily by the suspect was subject to very loose interpretation. -There were no rules restricting the method by which law enforcement obtained "voluntary" statements. -Physical violence, psychological coercion, empty promises, and meaningless guarantees of rewards were not considered objectionable procedures.

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF THE COMFORT/ DISCOMFORT EQUATION IN DETECTING DECEPTION

-Those who are lying or are guilty and must carry the knowledge of their lies and crimes with them find it difficult to achieve comfort, their tension and distress may be readily observed. -Attempting to disguise their guilt or deception places a distressing cognitive load on them as they struggle to fabricate answers to what would otherwise be simple questions. -The more comfortable a person is when speaking with investigators, the easier it will be to detect the critical nonverbal discomfort associated with deception. -The goal is to establish high comfort during the early part of any interaction or during the period of time characterized as "rapport building." -This helps to establish a baseline of behaviors during that period when the person, hopefully, does not feel threatened.

PART 2 : TIME, PLACE, AND SETTING OF INTERVIEWS AND INTERROGATION

-Reinterviewing witnesses should be avoided if the reinterview is likely to produce nothing beyond the info given in the initial statement. -Reinterviewing tends to become less and less convenient for witnesses, even though they may be friendly and cooperative. -There may be a tendency for reinterviewed witnesses to feel that the investigator does not know his or her job or was not prepared during the initial interview. -To avoid this problem, the investigator should first tell the witness that the purpose of the interview is not to rehash old info and should then explain what new info is being sought. -The investigator should ask for the info in a manner that does not elicit a repetition of the previous interview. -But investigators should not hesitate to conduct follow-up interviews when necessary, whether there was lack of skill in obtaining an initial statement, new info has developed, or the time or setting of the initial interview did not elicit the full attention of the witness. -Unlike the interview, which may take place in any number of different locations and at various times which may or may not be advantageous to the investigator, interrogation is a process controlled by the interrogator. -The interrogator is in command of the setting and governs the number and kinds of interruptions. -The most critical factor in controlling the interrogation is to ensure privacy and to guarantee that any distractions, planned or otherwise, are controlled by the interrogator. -Privacy may be used as a psychological tool; suspects may feel more willing to unload their burden of guilt in front of only one person.

PART 2: SUSPECT'S RESPONSE: WAIVER AND ALTERNATIVES

-Since the responsibility is on the prosecution, supported by evidence provided by the investigators, to substantiate the voluntariness of the waiver and the propriety of the warnings given to the suspect, law enforcement agencies provide printed cards with the exact wording of the required warnings. -They recommend or required that when warnings are given they be read verbatim from the printed card. -The officer, when testifying in court, can positively state the exact words used in advising the suspect of his or her constitutional rights. -Such a procedure avoids any confrontation with the defense as to the exact wording and contents of the Miranda requirements. -But in 1989 in Duckworth v. Eagen, the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary that the warnings be given in the exact form described in the Miranda decision, provided the warnings as a whole fully informed the suspect of his or her rights. -This position was reaffirmed in a 2010 case Florida v. Powell. -A person being subjected to in custody interrogation chooses not to answer any questions posed by law enforcement or not until an attorney is present. -When counsel is made available to the suspect before or during interrogation, it is universal practice for the attorney to advise the client not to say anything to the police. -Therefore, the effect of the Miranda decision has been to reduce the # of valid interrogations by law enforcement agencies in this country today. -Confessions obtained in compliance with prescribed rules are of better quality and more likely to be admissible in court. -It must be impressed on investigators that the failure to properly advise a suspect of the rights required by Miranda does not invalidate an otherwise valid arrest, nor does it mean a case cannot be successfully prosecuted.

INTERVIEWING INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED

-Speak to the individual when you approach him or her. -State clearly who you are; speak in a normal tone of voice. -When conversing in a group, remember to identify yourself to the person to whom you are speaking. -Never touch or distract a service dog without first asking the owner's permission. -Tell the individual when you are leaving. -Do not attempt to lead the individual without first asking. -Allow the person to hold your arm, thus allowing the person to control his or her own movements. -Be descriptive when giving directions; verbally give the person info that is visually obvious to individuals who can see. -EX: If you are approaching steps, mention how many steps. -If you are offering a seat, gently place the individual's hand on the back or arm of the chair so that the person can locate the seat.

QUALIFICATIONS OF INTERVIEWERS AND INTERROGATORS

-The effective interviewer or interrogator must be knowledgeable in the art and science of criminal investigation and know how to use psychology, salesmanship, and dramatics. -Persuasiveness and perseverance are also essential to success. -The interviewer or interrogator must make himself or herself easy to talk to. -By the appropriate use of vocal inflection, modulation, and emphasis, even the Miranda warnings can be presented to a suspect in a manner that does not cause the suspect to immediately assume a defensive posture. -The words can be spoken without creating an adversarial atmosphere. -The interviewer or interrogator must have a flexible personality and must be able to convey empathy, sympathy, anger, fear, and joy at appropriate times, but must always remain objective. -The interviewer or interrogator must keep an open mind and be receptive to all info, regardless of its nature. -A positive, firm approach, an ability to inspire confidence, and knowledge of a broad range of topics of general interest all help establish dominance or control in an interview: Behavior, not words, that shows confidence, determines dominance. -During an interrogation, the investigator must evaluate each development while avoiding the pitfall of underestimating the capabilities of the subject being interrogated. -Screaming or shouting, belittling the subject or the info, sneering, and other unplanned and uncontrolled reactions affect the interrogation. -The investigator must at all times maintain control f the interrogation without being openly domineering, by being a good active listener, by being serious, patient, and by being persistent and persuasive. -An ability to categorize the psychological and emotional traits being manifested by the suspect helps the investigator react in a manner that increases the possibility of conducting a successful interrogation, for it is the job of the interrogator to make it easy for a suspect to confess.

THE FREE-AND-VOLUNTARY RULE

-The first notable incidence of U.S. Supreme Court intervention into interrogation practices came about in Brown v. Mississippi. -In this 1936 case, the Supreme Court held that under no circumstances could a confession be considered freely and voluntarily given when it was obtained as a result of physical brutality and violence inflicted by law enforcement officials on the accused. -The police found they were able to compensate by conducting thorough criminal investigations. -Subsequent to the Brown decision, the Supreme Court has continued to reinforce its position that any kind of coercion, whether physical or psychological, would be grounds for making a confession inadmissible as being in violation of the free-and-voluntary rule. -This includes conduct as threatening bodily harm to the suspect or members of the suspect's family, using psychological coercion, engaging in trickery or deceit, or holding a suspect incommunicado. -Investigators are cautioned about making promises to the suspect that cannot be kept. -All these practices were condemned in Miranda v. Arizona. -What Miranda seeks is to abolish techniques that would prompt untrue incriminatory statements by a suspect. -Thus, unlike physical coercion, psychological coercion, threats, duress, promises, use of trickery, fraud, falsehood, and similar techniques are not absolutely forbidden. -If such methods are not likely to cause an individual to make self incriminating statements or admit to falsehoods in order to avoid threatened harm, confessions or admissions so obtained are admissible.

POLYGRAPH

-The first workable polygraph is attributed to John Larson (1892-1983) in 1921. -Its use spread relatively quickly in policing circles, and since then it has been improved upon a number of times, such as by adding the use of computer scoring. - The primary purpose of a polygraph examination is to determine if victims, suspects, and informants are being truthful or untruthful about what they say. -The polygraph is an adjunct to, but never a substitute for, other methods of investigation. -Other common objectives for polygraph examinations are determining the reliability of informants, eliminating suspects, and narrowing the scope of an investigation. -When people are not in real jeopardy for lying they may not have the same physiological responses as those who are lying to avoid criminal culpability for a felony. -Polygraphs record indicators of a person's cardiovascular pattern and fluctuations, respiratory patterns and fluctuations, and changes in skin resistance or sweat on the fingertips. -The three most common findings by an examiner are no deception indicated, deception indicated, and inconclusive. -A supervisor's approval is required before an investigator can have a person examined by a polygraphist. -The investigator is obliged to work with the examiner in a number of ways, such as: 1. Providing the examiner with the information obtained in the investigation that supports and justifies the use of the polygraph. 2. Giving the polygraphist copies of incident, supplemental, and other relevant documents. 3. Calling attention to evidence that the subject does not yet know the police have. 4. Making available background information on the subject, including criminal history and possible motives. 5. Advising of statements made by the subject to victims and witnesses, as well as alibis provided. 6. Giving news articles and other general information about the case. 7. Helping the examiner arrange for a sign-language interpreter or translator, as necessary. 8. Not trying to plan the procedures to be used, which is the purview of the examiner. 9. Not interrogating the suspect just before the examination. 10. Ensuring that persons authorized to be with the subject are present (for example, attorneys, parents, or legal guardians). 11. Promptly advising the examiner if the subject is going to be late or has cancelled.

THE SUSPECT

-The interrogator must evaluate the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the interrogation and must begin to evaluate the suspect. -An effective interrogator understands that a successful interrogation cannot be organized and compartmentalized into a neat, orderly, step-by-step package. -Rather, it is a combo of personality, behavior, and interpersonal communication skills b/w the interrogator and suspect. -It is made up of verbal processes and the way they are communicated, nonverbal actions including body language and personality characteristics that together might be characterized as a psychological fingerprint. -Only by understanding the interaction of all these variables can the interrogator effectively evaluate the interrogation process as it will be initiated and modified during the interrogation. -To begin the preparation, the interrogator should review the offense report, statements of witnesses, lab reports, all file info pertaining to the suspect, and other related data. -It is essential that the interrogator know all the elements of the offense involved. -Failure to possess this info may preclude obtaining a complete confession, which must contain admissions by the suspect to the commission of each and every element of the crime. -The investigation should reveal as much personal background info on the suspect as can be obtained. -This should include aliases, Social Security number, date and place of birth, education, marital status, employment history, financial history and current circumstances, prior offenses, past and present physical and mental health, any drug or alcohol abuse or addiction, relationship to the victim or crime scene, possible motive, biases and prejudices, home environment, sexual interests, and hobbies. -The investigation and preparation for an interrogation should determine whether the suspect had the capability and opportunity to commit the offense and should confirm or disprove an alibi. -The interrogator should obtain as much info from other people involved to determine the suspect's attitude. -This will enable the interrogator to anticipate levels of hostility or cooperativeness during the interrogation.

THE VICTIM

-The interviewer should learn as much as possible about the victim's background, the nature of the injury or loss, attitudes toward the investigation, and any other useful info, such as the existence of insurance in a property crime case. -If the victim is an organization or a business, a determination of any practices that would make the organization a criminal target could be extremely valuable. -If relevant, the interviewer should determine whether the business is insured against losses.

THE USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS FOR INTERROGATIONS

-The methods of keeping notes of interrogations is the same for interviews. -Electronic recording of an interrogation is the best means of documentation. -Audio, video, or a combo of both may be used, but case law and local requirements should be checked. -At present, law enforcement agencies in 38 states currently record custodial interviews of suspects in felony investigations. -They are located in every area of the U.S. and are diverse in size and individual practices. -Following are elements addressed in their respective policies as it relates to the use of electronic recordings for interrogation. 1.Mandatory or discretionary. -Most agencies leave the recording decision to the discretion of the investigator in charge, although recordings are customarily made by the investigators in cases covered by discretionary policies. 2. When to begin recordings. -Most departments use audio and/or video recording devices to record interrogations of persons under arrest in a police facility starting from the point when the Miranda warnings are given until the interview is ended, with no intentional breaks or omissions in the recordings. 3. Crimes under investigation. -Most departments record only in "major" or "serious" felony investigations, such as homicide, sexual assault, armed robbery, and other crimes against persons and those involving weapons. -Many record interviews in DUI, child abuse, and domestic violence investigations. 4. Equipment. -Some departments use multiple cameras from different views, while others use a single camera focused on the suspect. -Many departments are acquiring digital technology in order to improve picture resolution and conserve storage space. 5. Suspect's knowledge. -State eavesdropping laws govern if suspects must be told they are being recorded. -"One-party consent" laws allow the police to record without informing the suspects. -"Two-party consent" laws require the police to obtain the suspects' consent. -Most state laws permit police to record surreptitiously, although sophisticated suspects and repeat offenders may be aware without being told. -Most departments inform suspects that the session will be recorded and place the recording equipment in plain view, although most of them are not required by state law to do so. -Almost all investigators turn the recording devices off if the suspect declines to talk while being recorded.

MIRANDA AND MISDEMEANORS

-The question of whether Miranda applies to misdemeanor arrests was the subject of controversy for many years. -In 1984, the Supreme Court settled this issue. -The Court ruled in Berkemer v. McCarty that Miranda applies to the interrogation of an arrested person regardless of whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. -The justices found that to make a distinction would cause confusion, because many times it is not certain if the person taken into custody is to be charged with a felony or a misdemeanor.

PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEWS OR INTERROGATIONS

-The success of the interviewer or interrogator and of the interview or interrogation will be determined by the time and dedication committed to preparing for the conversation. -The interviewer must become familiar with the facts of the case under investigation and with the victim. -To carry out the four objectives, the interrogator must learn as much as possible about the offense, the victim(s), and the suspect through the process of collecting, assessing, and analyzing data and theorizing about the motivations and thought processes of the suspect. -This begins the formulation of a profile that will then dictate the initial approach the interrogator will take upon first contacting the suspect.

VOLUNTARY FALSE CONFESSIONS

-Voluntary false confessions are those people claim responsibility for crimes they did not commit without prompting or pressure from police. -Often occurs in high profile cases. -EX: When Charles Lindbergh's infant son was kidnapped and killed in 1932, 200 people volunteered confessions. -EX: When "Black Dahlia" actress Elizabeth Short was murdered in 1947, 50 people confessed. -EX: In 2006 John Mark Karr confessed to the unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey. -Researchers have not systematically studied these types of false confessions because they are typically disproved at the outset by the confessor's ignorance and inability to furnish corroborating details about the crime. -There are several reasons why innocent people might volunteer confessions, such as a pathological need for attention, self punishment, feeling of guilt or delusions, perception of tangible gain, or desire to protect a parent, child, or someone else.

SIGNS OF DISCOMFORT IN AN INTERACTION

-We all show signs of discomfort when we do not like what is happening to us, when we do not like what we are seeing or hearing, or when we are compelled to talk about things we would prefer to keep hidden. -We display discomfort in our physiology, due to arousal of the limbic brain. -Our heart rate quickens, we perspire more, and breathe faster. -Beyond the physiological responses, which are autonomic and require no thinking on our part, our bodies manifest discomfort nonverbally. -We tend to move our bodies in an attempt to block ourselves from the source of our discomfort. -We rearrange ourselves, jiggle our feet, fidget, twist at the hips, or drum our fingers when we are scared, nervous, or significantly uncomfortable. -These actions do not indicate deception but do indicate that a person is uncomfortable in the situation. -When the investigator is attempting to observe discomfort as an indicator of deception, the best setting is one that has no objects b/w the person being observed and the investigator. -Movements of the lower limbs are particularly revealing. -Thus, if a person is behind a desk or table, the investigator should try to move it away from the person because such an obstacle will block the vast majority of the body surfaces that need to be observed. -The investigator should watch for the deceptive individual using obstacles or objects to form a physical barrier b/w the investigator and himself or herself. -The use of objects is a sign that an individual wants distance, separation, and partial concealment, because the subject is being less open which goes with being uncomfortable or deceitful. -When it comes to questioning someone, nonverbal clues can be obtained from standing rather than sitting. -Other clear signs of discomfort seen in people during a difficult or troubling interview include rubbing the forehead; covering the throat; difficulty swallowing; clearing the throat; coughing; covering or twisting the mouth; biting or licking lips; yawning and sighs; itching and rubbing the nose, mustache, or beard; tugging at their ears or covering their ears; pulling their hair or grooming it; flushing of the skin or becoming extremely pale; squeezing their face; rubbing their neck; and stroking the back of their head with their hand. -People show their displeasure with the process by rolling their eyes in disrespect, picking lint off themselves, talking down to the person asking the questions, giving short answers, becoming resistant, hostile, sarcastic, or displaying microgestures with indecent connotations such as giving the finger. -When making false statements, liars rarely touch or engage in other physical contact with the investigator. -Since touching is more done by the truthful person for emphasis, this distancing helps to alleviate the level of anxiety a dishonest person is feeling. -Any diminution of touching observed in a person engaged in conversation, while hearing or answering questions, is likely than not indicative of deception. -When observing a person's face for signs of comfort or discomfort, investigators should look for subtle behaviors such as a grimace or a look of contempt. -The person's face should be observed to see if their mouth is quivering. -This is a clear indication of nervousness and discomfort. -Any facial expression that lasts too long or lingers is not normal, whether a smile, a frown, or a surprised look. -Such contrived behavior during an interview is intended to influence the investigator's opinion and lacks authenticity. -Often when people are caught doing something wrong or lying, they hold a smile for an unusual period of time. -Rather than being an indication of comfort, this type of false smile is an indication of discomfort. -On occasion, when we do not like what we are hearing, if a question or an answer, we close our eyes as if to block it. -The various forms of eye blocking mechanisms are analogous to folding one's hands tightly across the chest or turning away from those with whom we disagree. -These blocking displays are performed subconsciously and occur often during a formal interview, and are related to a specific topic. -Eyelid flutter is observed at times when a particular subject causes distress.

ESTABLISHING THE COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS

-The term competency refers to a witness's personal qualifications for testifying in court. -Competency must be established before a witness is permitted to give any testimony. -The witness's personal qualification depends on circumstances that affect his or her legal ability to function as a sworn witness in court. -Competency has nothing to do with the believability of a witness's info. -Among the factors an investigator must evaluate in determining the competency of a witness are age, level of intelligence, mental state, relationship to individuals involved in the case, and background characteristics that might preclude the testimony of the witness from being heard in court. -EX: In many jurisdictions, a child cannot be a witness unless it can be shown that the child knows the difference between truth and imagination and understands the importance of being honest. -Any person whose intelligence or mental state prevents him or her from understanding the obligation of telling the truth is not permitted to testify, regardless of the info he or she may possess. -Relationships among individuals involved in a case may affect a witness's competency. -Husbands and wives need not testify against each other, nor may attorneys testify against clients, doctors against patients, or ministers against penitents. -Privileges vary by state. -Background characteristics may preclude a witness's testimony from being accepted in court. -EX: Some state laws forbid a convicted perjurer from testifying.

THE INTERROGATION ROOM

-The traditional interrogation room should be sparsely furnished, with two chairs. -There should be no physical barriers, tables or desks, between the investigator and the suspect. -From the officer's standpoint, barriers create an unwanted feeling of psychological well-being on the part of the suspect. -If there is a table or desk in the room, the chairs should be corner to corner rather than on opposite sides. -This arrangement permits the interrogator to move both chairs away from the table and eliminate the barrier. -Proximity in an interrogation can be important. -The suspect and the interrogator should be close enough to touch without being too close, without having any object easy to move in order to eliminate the table as a barrier. -There are considerable differences in the comfort zones of ethnic groups, and interrogators must make it a point to know as much as possible about the unique psychological and cultural characteristics of the individuals they encounter both in interviews as well as interrogations. -The two-way mirror, although still a useful tool for allowing others to observe the interrogation, is widely known and may cause some subjects to refuse to cooperate in the interrogation. -If a two-way mirror is to be used, it should be small and unobtrusive. -As a standard practice, the interrogation room should be equipped with a video or audio system that includes a recording device, unless prohibited by state law. -Although the traditional interrogation room just described is designed to ensure control and domination over the interrogation because of its privacy, security, and aura of authority, this approach does not impress the habitual or experienced offender, who understands the rules and standards of conduct of the classical interrogation room. -If the offender is skilled and intelligent, he or she not only can cope with the psychological influences such a setting is designed to foster but also can become the dominant force, or at least be on the same psychological level as the interrogator. -When this occurs, the skills of the interrogator become even more important.

WITNESSES' MOTIVATIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND BARRIERS

-There are many types of witnesses, each has different motivations and perceptions that influence his or her responses during an interview. -The motivations and perceptions may be based on conscious choices or subconscious stimuli. -The interviewer must learn to recognize, overcome, and compensate for these factors. -There is no way to categorize all personalities, attitudes, and other character traits. -The variables are too numerous and individualized; the combos are as complex as the human mind. -Nevertheless, there are some basic groupings that can be mentioned -Some witnesses may be honest and cooperative and desire to impart info in their possession to the investigator. -Despite these admirable qualities, the info may still be affected by other factors that influence all witnesses, such as age, physical characteristics, and emotions. -It may be wise in most circumstances to interview this type of witness first to obtain basic info that can then be compared with later-acquired stories. -Some witnesses may desire not to give any info in an interview regardless of what they know. -Some may simply not want to get involved, while others may fear any contact with a law enforcement agency, especially if they have had earlier negative experiences with law enforcement. -This is especially true of immigrants who have come from developing countries in which the police have been corrupt or may be in the country illegally and are fearful of being deported. -Others may not understand the significance of info they have, and some may not want to do anything that would aid law enforcement. -Some witnesses may be reluctant to cooperate or be suspicious of the motives of the interviewer until a rapport is established and the investigator can assure the witness of his or her good intentions. -Because some witnesses may be deceitful and provide incorrect info, it is a basic principle that an investigator should never take a witness's explanation totally at face value but, rather, should obtain supporting info or evidence. -There may be other barriers that must be overcome in order to successfully interview someone who has knowledge of the circumstances under which a crime was committed. -Language barriers may not initially be recognized as significant, may prevent the interviewer from obtaining any useful info; however, some people may be so talkative and provide so much info that their motives should be questioned, along with the info they provide. -A potential witness who may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs may or may not have info that could be used at trial; thus the condition of the witness is a major factor to be considered in assessing the value of any info obtained.

INTERVIEWING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

-There are millions of individuals in the U.S. who have special needs and law enforcement officers must be aware of the most effective means of interviewing such individuals as well as two federal laws that address the requirements on the part of law enforcement on how to deal with these types of crime victims. -Within the special needs groups are individuals who are blind or visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing, mobility impaired, speech impaired or have cognitive disabilities.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT—WAIVER

-Thompkins argued that absent an invocation of his right to silence, his statements still should be suppressed because he never adequately waived his right to silence. -Two portions of the original Miranda decision tilt the scale in Thompkins' favor on this issue. -The Miranda Court said, "a valid waiver will not be presumed the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was eventually obtained." -"a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self incrimination" -The Supreme Court clarified its position with respect to the waiver since the Miranda decision. -The impact has been to keep Miranda focused on the right to refrain from speaking and to consult an attorney. -As the Court in Berghuis noted: "The main purpose of Miranda is to ensure that an accused is advised of and understands the right to remain silent and the right to counsel" -Thus, "if anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case in chief."

COURT PROCEEDINGS

-Thompkins filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation and claimed his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent had been violated. -The trial court denied the motion, and Thompkins' admission was used against him at trial. -Thompkins was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. -Thompkins appealed The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the Miranda claim, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied review. -Thereafter, Thompkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that was likewise denied. -The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court ruling in favor of Thompkins. -However, for the reasons set forth herein, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and found no Miranda violations.

DETERRING INTIMIDATORS

1. Admonish intimidators. -When witnesses or victims tell police they are afraid or have experienced direct intimidation, police can visit the offender and his or her family and friends to caution them regarding their behavior and to explain the laws concerning witness intimidation and obstruction of justice. -In court, judges should be vigilant about threatening gestures or actions and admonish defendants or spectators who display such behaviors. -Some jurisdictions educate judges about the types of courtroom intimidation that are exhibited by gang members, such as courtroom packing or wearing specific gang colors. 2. Request high bail and no contact orders. -In cases in which the risk of intimidation is significant, prosecutors can seek high bail to keep defendants in jail and away from witnesses. -Where this strategy is used, bond hearings cannot be a mere formality; witness statements and risk assessments should be prepared in advance and presented in court. -Prosecutors should seek release conditions that forbid contact with witnesses and victims and make sure that the consequences for violating conditions are clearly articulated.

Reading Pacifying Nonverbal and Interpersonal Interactions

1. Expect some pacifying behaviors. -A certain level of pacifying behavior is normal in everyday nonverbal displays; people do this to calm themselves as they adapt to an ever-changing environment. -Pacifying behaviors take many forms. -When stressed we soothe our necks with a massage, stroke our faces, or play with our hair. -This is done automatically. -Our brains send out the message "please pacify me now," and our hands respond immediately, acting in a way that helps make us comfortable again. -We pacify by rubbing our necks or our lips from the inside with our tongue, or exhale slowly with puffed cheeks to calm ourselves. -If a stressed person is a smoker he or she will smoke more, given the opportunity. -If the person chews gum, he or she will chew faster. -All these pacifying behaviors satisfy the same requirement of the brain, that is, the brain requires the body to do something that will stimulate nerve endings, releasing calming endorphins in the brain so that the brain can be soothed. -Men prefer to pacify by touching their face while women prefer to pacify by touching their clothing, jewelry, necklace, and neck. 2. Get a clear view. -Have nothing blocking the total view of the person to ensure that no pacifying behavior will be missed. -EX: If the person pacifies by wiping their hands on their lap, the investigator would want to see this. -This is difficult to observe when there is a desk in the way. 3. Expect initial nervousness. -Initial nervousness in the questioning process by the police is normal. -EX: If an innocent person is being told by the police that he or she is considered a suspect in a murder or rape investigation one would certainly expect a certain level of nervousness. 4. Get the person to relax first. -As questioning progresses, individuals should eventually calm down and become comfortable. -A good investigator will make sure this happens by allowing the person to relax before asking questions or exploring topics that might be stressful. 5. Establish a baseline. -Once a person's pacifying behaviors have decreased and stabilized to normal, the investigator can recognize that pacifying level as a baseline for assessing future behavior. 6. Look for increased use of pacifiers. -As the interview or conversation continues, it is normal for pacifying behaviors to increase in their frequency, when they occur in response to a specific question or piece of information. -EX: If a person is questioned about a crime and starts to ventilate his collar (a pacifier), that means that specific inquiry has caused a sufficient amount of stress to make the brain require pacification. -This indicates the issue needs to be pursued further. -The behavior does not necessarily mean that deception is involved but simply that the topic is causing the interviewee stress. • 7. Ask, pause, and observe. -Good investigators should not engage in staccato fashion type questioning. -Unfortunately, some false confessions have been obtained because of sustained staccato-like questioning, causes high stress and obfuscation and nonverbal cues. -Innocent people have been known to confess to crimes and have even provided written statements in order to terminate a stressful interview when excessive or inappropriate pressure is applied. 8. Keep the person being interviewed focused. -Investigators should keep in mind that many times when people are simply talking and telling their side of the story there will be fewer useful nonverbals performed than when the investigator controls the scope of the topic. -Pointed questions elicit behavioral manifestations that are useful in assessing a person's honesty. 9. Chatter is not truth. -One mistake made by novice and experienced investigators is the tendency to equate talking with truth. -When the person being questioned is talking, there is a tendency for investigators to believe them. -When the person is reserved, it is assumed they are lying. -During conversation, people who provide an overwhelming amount of info and detail about an event or a situation may appear to be telling the truth -However, in reality they may be hoping it will obfuscate the facts or lead the conversation in another direction. 10. Stress coming in and going out. -A person with guilty knowledge will present two distinct behaviors in sequence. -When asked a difficult question such as "Were you involved in the murder of your wife?" -The first behavior will reflect the stress experienced when hearing the question. -The person will subconsciously respond with various distancing behaviors including foot withdrawal and may lean away or may tighten his jaw and lips. -This behavior will be followed by the second set of related behaviors, pacifying responses to the stress that include signals such as neck touching, nose stroking, or neck massaging as he ponders the question or answer. 11. Isolate the cause of the stress. -Two behavior patterns in series, the stress indicators followed by pacifying behaviors have traditionally been erroneously associated with deception. -This is unfortunate, because these manifestations need to be explained more simply as what they are indicators of stress and stress relief not dishonesty. -No doubt someone who is lying may display these same behaviors, but individuals who are nervous also show them.

RESPONSE STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING WITNESS INTIMIDATION

1. Form multi-agency partnerships. -The appropriate party to address the threat of witness intimidation may change as a case moves through the CJS. -EX: The police may be responsible for protecting or supporting witnesses at the outset a case, but the responsibility might later shift to the prosecutor when the case goes to trial. 2. Strengthen ties between police and the community. Fostering cooperation on the part of reluctant witnesses is a natural extension of community policing and community prosecution, which focus on engaging residents in preventing and responding to crime. -EX: Mobile precincts can increase police visibility after a high profile gang related crime in an area where intimidation is likely to occur. -Storefront precincts can increase the level of contact with residents and make it easier to provide encouragement and support. 3. Minimize the risk of witness identification when reporting crime or offering statements. -This is particularly true in neighborhoods where community wide intimidation is a factor and residents may hesitate to cooperate with police at the scene of a crime, b/c they fear being labeled as an informant or a "rat." -As a result, methods for reporting crime or offering witness statements that do not make cooperation obvious to observers are sometimes needed. 4. Reduce the likelihood of contact between witnesses and offenders. -Acts of intimidation are committed at a witness's home, workplace, school, or during the normal course of the witness's daily activities. -Minimizing the opportunities and avenues by which witnesses come into contact with offenders can reduce the incidence of intimidation. -EX: Wherever practical witnesses can alter their normal routines by varying the routes taken to work or school and making their schedules irregular and unpredictable. 5. Transport witnesses to and from work and school. -Many witnesses feel vulnerable when traveling to and from work or school, or attending to their business in the community. -Police escorts during these times can deter offenders from making contact. -However, such protection schemes consume significant police resources and may not be feasible for broad application. 6. Keep witnesses and defendants separated at the courthouse. -Other than at home, witnesses are often intimidated in the courthouse, while waiting to testify and while in the courtroom giving testimony. -Not only must witnesses endure a face-to-face encounter with the defendant, but they may also be apprehensive about contact with the defendant's family and friends. -Key danger areas include courthouse entrances, hallways, elevators, waiting areas, refreshment areas, and restrooms. -Separate waiting rooms and entrances for witnesses and defendants can be useful. 7. Relocate witnesses. -B/c it is unusual for offenders to travel outside their neighborhoods to intimidate witnesses, simply moving a witness to another location may effectively protect him or her from harm. -The key to this strategy is to ensure that the new location remains confidential. -Out of boredom, or b/c they are reluctant to sever ties with friends and family, the witnesses may unwittingly compromise the secrecy of their new locations.

SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS TO CONSIDER IN DETECTING DECEPTION

1. Lack of emphasis in hand behaviors. -A lack of arm movement and a lack of emphasis are suggestive of deception. -Any sudden reduction in or change in movement reflects brain activity. -When arms shift from being animated to being still, there is a reason, be it dejection or deception. - Deceptive individuals will tend to display less steepling of the fingers. -The investigator should look for the white knuckles of the individual who grabs the chair armrest in a fixed manner as though in an "ejector seat." -Many criminal investigators have found that when the head, neck, arms, and legs are held in place with little movement and the hands and arms are clutching the armrest, such behavior is very much consistent with those who are about to deceive, but again, it is not definitive 2. Swearing to the truthfulness of assertions. Interestingly, as individuals make declarative statements that are false, they will avoid touching not only other people but also objects, such as a podium or table as well. -It is almost unheard of for a person who is lying to yell affirmatively, "I didn't do it," while pounding his or her fist on a table. -It is not at all unusual for individuals who are not being truthful to immediately invoke the name of God and say such things as "I swear to God," or perhaps even invoke their children by making statements such as "if I'm lying may my children die or lose their eyesight," or some other ridiculously desperate plea to convince the interrogator they are not lying. -The same psychological motivation for swearing is involved in the use of such expressions as "I have a spotless record" and "I am a very religious man, I couldn't do anything like that." -Expressions of this type are frequently used by guilty subjects in an effort to lend forcefulness or conviction to their assertions of innocence. -Also, what usually happens in this case is that there may be very weak, nonemphatic statements and gestures that are equally mild. -People who are being deceptive lack commitment and confidence in what they are saying. -Although their thinking brain (neocortex) will decide what to say in order to mislead, their emotive brain (the limbic system—the honest part of the brain) simply will not be committed to the ruse and therefore will not emphasize their statements using nonverbal behaviors (such as gestures). -The sentiments of the limbic brain are hard to override. 3. The rogatory position. When people place their outstretched arms in front of their bodies, with palms up, this is known as the rogatory display. -Those who worship turn their palms up to God to ask for mercy. -This behavior is also seen in individuals who say something that they want you to believe. -When a person makes a declarative statement, note whether the hands are palms up or palms down. During regular conversation in which ideas are being discussed and neither party is vehemently committed to a particular point, the investigator can expect to see both palms-up and palms-down displays. -However, when a person is making a passionate and assertive declaration such as "You have to believe me, I did not kill her," those hands should be face down. -If the statement is made palms up, the individual is supplicating to be believed, and such a statement should be highly suspect. -Although this interpretation is not definitive, any declarative statement made with palms up should raise serious questions about the truthfulness of the statement being made. -People who are telling the truth do not have to plead to be believed; they make a statement, and it stands.

Experts distinguish a # of factors that limit a person's ability to give a complete account of events or to identify people accurately.

1. The significance or insignificance of the event. -When an insignificant event occurs in the presence of an individual, it does not generally motivate the individual to bring fully into play the selective process of attention. 2. The length of the period of observation. -If ample opportunity is not provided for observation, the capability of the memory to record that which is perceived is decreased. 3. Lack of ideal conditions. -In situations where ideal conditions for observation are absent, the ability of the witness to perceive details is significantly decreased. -Distance, poor lighting, fast movement, or the presence of a crowd may interfere with the efficient working of the attention process. 4. Psychological factors internal to the witness. -A witness under stress at the time of observation may find this to be a major source of unreliability in his or her observations. 5. The physical condition of the witness. -If the witness is injured or intoxicated, this condition will affect his or her ability to provide complete and accurate info. 6. Lack of familiarity with members of another race or ethnic group. -Some egregious cases of misidentification occurred in those crimes which are interracial or interethnic in nature. -These occur because in cases the victim is not accustomed to dealing with members of the race or ethnic group of the assailant and is unable to distinguish important variation in facial characteristics. -The more contact the victim has had with members of that race or ethnic group the less likely it is that a misidentification will occur. 7. Expectancy. -Research has shown that memory recall and judgment are based on what psychologists term expectancy. -This concept means that an individual perceives things in the manner in which he or she expects them to appear. -EX:A right-handed eyewitness to a homicide might, in answer to a question and without positive knowledge, state the assailant held the gun in his right hand, whereas a left-handed person might say the opposite. -Biases or prejudices are illustrated by the expectancy theory, as is the problem with stereotyping.

PACIFYING BEHAVIORS

Although pacifiers, which are physical behaviors we use to calm ourselves, are not alone definitive proof of deception, since they can manifest in innocent people who are nervous, they do provide another piece of the puzzle in determining what a person may be truly thinking.

SALINAS V. TEXAS

In July 15, 2013, the Supreme Court addressed the question to self incrimination statements: -"Does the Fifth Amendment Self Incrimination Clause protect a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he/she has been arrested or read their Miranda rights?" -In 1992, Houston police officers found the bodies of 2 homicide victims. -The investigation led officers to a person of interest, Genovevo Salinas. -Salinas agreed to accompany the officers to the police station where he was questioned for 1 hour. -Salinas was not under arrest at the time and had not been read his Miranda rights. -Salinas answered every question until an officer asked whether the shotgun shells found at the scene of the crime would match the gun found in Salinas' home. -According to the officer, Salinas remained silent in response to the question but showed signs of deception. -A ballistics analysis later matched Salinas' shotgun with shotgun shells found at the scene. -Police found a witness who said Salinas admitted killing the victims. -In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders, but could not be located. -15 years later, Salinas was captured. -The first trial ended in a mistrial. -At the second trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce evidence of Salinas' silence about the gun casings. -Salinas objected, arguing that he had the right to invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination whether he was in custody or not. -The trial court admitted the evidence and Salinas was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. -In a 5 to 4 majority decision the Court concluded that the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. -Long-standing judicial precedent held any witness who desires protection against self incrimination must explicitly claim that protection. -This requirement ensures that the government is put on notice when a defendant intends to claim this privilege and allows the government to argue that the testimony is not self incriminating or offer immunity. -The plurality of the justices reiterated two exceptions to this principle: 1) that a criminal defendant does not need to take the stand at trial in order to explicitly claim this privilege 2) that failure to claim this privilege must be excused when that failure was due to government coercion. -The opinion declined to extend these exceptions to the situation in this case. -Not withstanding popular misconceptions, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves. -As police do not deprive defendants of the opportunity to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no Constitutional violation.