In the case, State v. Kincaid, (August 2020) Professor Hirsch testified that the Reid Technique uses two pillars for interrogation - the first being confrontation, the second minimization. “So with (those) they are designed to convince the subject of two things…..One, maintaining innocence is futile, and it will get you nowhere. Two, if you confess, things won’t be that bad. It will be the way to escape this awful situation. Anyone who believes those two things would be very tempted to confess and might very well do it even if they didn’t commit the crime.”

The Reid Technique always starts with a non-accusatory, non-confrontational investigative interview in which the investigator is a neutral, objective fact finder. It is only when the information developed during the investigation indicates the subject’s probable involvement in the commission of the crime that an interrogation becomes appropriate - see our YouTube channel for videos describing the Reid Technique process.

Furthermore, we teach never to threaten inevitable consequences and never to promise leniency during the interrogation - see The Core Principles of the Reid Technique. In the Kincaid case our company president, Mr. Joseph Buckley, testified on behalf of the prosecution that there was nothing improper about the questioning of the defendant. The defendant was found guilty by the jury.

This is not the first time professor Hirsch has misrepresented the Reid Technique - see our entry below dated September 16, 2009. As one federal court has stated about Professor Hirsch’s testimony, "Although Professor Hirsch insisted that “there is a wealth of information about the risks of the Reid technique,” he could point to none.”