|
|
07/01/2010 | Investigators Tip: July-August. 2010 |
Following a successful interrogation the investigator will convert the oral confession to a court admissible document. This document may be handwritten by the suspect, a formal statement which the suspect signs or an electronically recorded confession.Regardless of its final form, a suspect's confession will be the strongest piece of evidence presented in a court of law and may be used to establish probable cause to obtain arrest or search warrants which may result in further evidence or resolve other cases; in short, a suspect's confession is often the lynch-pin to a successful prosecution.
Documenting Field Confessions |
|
05/01/2010 | Investigators Tip: May-Jun. 2010 |
In 1998 David Lykken wrote a book titled, “A Tremor in the Blood: The Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph Technique”. In it, he advocated the use of his own “Guilty Knowledge Test” and attacked the existing Control Question Technique by initially offering a naïve description of control question theory. He then picked apart his own implausible theory. The uninformed reader was left with the forgone conclusion: ‘Of course the control question polygraph technique is invalid, look at how faulty the underlying theory is.’
Responding to Defense Experts’ Characterization of Interrogation |
|
05/01/2010 | Admissibility of statements from impaired drivers - New Canadian Legal Column |
Impaired driving is one of the most common crimes investigated by frontline police officers. However, the subject of questioning an impaired driver, and the admissibility of the person’s statement is usually not at the forefront of impaired driving case law. And yet, the ambiguity surrounding these topics makes case law a necessity . This case has a useful, practical purpose for frontline officers.
Click here to access the complete column. |
|
05/01/2010 | What is the PEACE model for interviewing? |
Several years ago the United Kingdom adopted a set of interviewing guidelines called the PEACE model. These guidelines consist of five distinct parts (corresponding to the acronym "PEACE"):
Preparation and Planning: Interviewers are taught to properly prepare and plan for the interview and formulate aims and objectives.
Engage and Explain: Rapport is established with the subject, and officers engage the person in conversation.
Account: Officers are taught two methods of eliciting an account from the interviewee:
* Cognitive Interview: used with cooperative suspects and witnesses.
* Conversation Management: recommended when cooperation is insufficient for the cognitive interview techniques to work.
Closure: The officer summarizes the main points from the interview and provides the suspect with the opportunity to correct or add information.
Evaluate: Once the interview is finished, the information gathered must be evaluated in the context of its impact on the investigation.
The guidelines do not allow for any accusatory interrogation. Is the PEACE model an effective alternative for the current interview and interrogation techniques currently practiced by most law enforcement investigators in North America?
lick here for a discussion of this issue. |
|
05/01/2010 | The North Virginia Chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditors presents 1 day Reid seminar |
The North Virginia Chapter of the IIA will present a one-day seminar on The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation presented by Joseph Buckley, president of John E. Reid and Associates on June 8, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia.
Click here for details |
|
05/01/2010 | Reid helps the Innocence Project secure the release of a wrongfully convicted man |
Frank Sterling was convicted of the 1988 murder of an elderly woman. DNA testing eventually implicated another person - Mark Christie who was in jail serving a life sentence for murdering a 4 year old child.
The Innocence Project contacted John E. Reid and Associates and asked us if we could provide an investigator who could interview and interrogate Mark Christie about the 1988 murder. We sent one of our staff investigators and seminar instructor, Richard Byington, to meet with the Innocence Project and then eventually with Mark Christie. Rich obtained a full corroborated confession from Mark Christie. Several days later Rich went back up to Rochester with the DA's chief investigator to re-interview Christie who again gave a full detailed confession. The decision was then made to let Sterling out of jail. He was released on April 28, 2010.
Click here for a copy of the press release issued by the Innocence Project. |
|
05/01/2010 | Two new U. S. Supreme Court decisions on Miranda |
The following 2 cases United States Supreme Court Cases were reported in Law Enforcement Legal Review - March/April 2010
Court Adopts Bright Line Rule on When Police Can Re-Question a Defendant After an Initial Invocation of the Right to Counsel
Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680, 2010)
http:www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-680.ZS.html
A police officer attempted to question defendant in 2003 while he was incarcerated at a prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Defendant exercised his right to have an attorney during the interrogation, so the officer terminated the interview. Defendant was released back into the general prison population, and the investigation was closed. Another detective reopened the investigation in 2006 and attempted to interrogate defendant, who was still in prison. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and made inculpatory statements. He was then convicted of child sexual abuse. The court below ruled that under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) the defendant could not be interrogated the second time because of his invocation of the right to counsel in 2003.
Reversing, the United State Supreme Court ruled that since defendant experienced a "break" in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between the first and second attempts at interrogation, Edwards did not mandate suppression of his 2006 statements. The court ruled that if a defendant is released from Miranda custody he can be reproached by the police for interrogation. The release back into the general prison population after the sex crime investigation constituted a "break" in Miranda custody, the Court said.
The police, however, must wait at least 14 days after a break in Miranda custody before they can re-approach a defendant in order for the defendant to get back to a "normal" life, which in this case was a return to the general prison population. Thus the Court has adopted a 14-day "bright line" rule for a break in Miranda custody, after which the police can re-approach a suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel.
Court Clarifies the Language of Miranda Warnings
Florida v. Powell (No. 08-1175, 2010)
http://www/law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1175.ZS.html
In Miranda the Court held that an individual must be "clearly informed," prior to a custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, "the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation." In this case the police read defendant his rights from their standard Miranda form, stating, inter alia: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions" and "[y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview." Defendant then confessed. The court below ruled the advice the defendant received was misleading because it suggested that he could consult with an attorney only before the police started to question him and it did not convey his entitlement to counsel's presence throughout the interrogation.
The Court reversed, holding that the advice satisfied Miranda. By informing that defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [their] questions," the officers communicated that he could consult with a lawyer before answering any particular question. And the statement that defendant had "the right to use any of [his] rights at any time [he] want[ed] during th[e] interview" confirmed that he could exercise his right to an attorney while the interrogation was underway. In combination, the two warnings reasonably conveyed the right to have an attorney present, not only at the outset of an interrogation, but t all times. The Court declined to adopt or endorse any particular formulation of the Miranda warnings. The warnings are sufficient if they convey the essential rights required by Miranda, and reviewing courts are not required to "examine [them] as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably 'convey to [a suspect] his rights as required by Miranda."
|
|
03/04/2010 | Alaska court excludes testimony of Dr. Richard Ofshe |
On February 17, 2010 the Alaska Superior Court, Third District, in the case of State vs. Williams, granted the prosecutor's motion to preclude the testimony of the defense expert on false confessions, Dr. Richard Ofshe, stating that his "testimony would not appreciably aid the court or the jury."
In this opinion the court references the case Vent v. State (67 P.3d 661 Alaska App. 2003) in which the Alaska Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision to preclude the testimony of Dr. Richard Leo on the issue of false confessions. The lower court had found that "Dr. Leo's testimony would not appreciably aid the jury in determining whether Vent made a false confession." The trial court judge was also "troubled by the fact that there was no way to quantify or test Dr. Leo's conclusions that certain techniques might lead to a false confession. He also concluded that jurors would be aware that some people do make false confessions and that this proposition could be developed by questioning and argument."
Click here for the complete opinion |
Click Here to view earlier "What's New"
|
| |
 |
|
