REID TECHNIQUE VINDICATED IN COURT RULING

On November 18, 2025, Associate Judge Tanya M. Jones Bosier of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia decided that derogatory statements about the Reid Technique which were attributed to James Trainum by author Steve Neavling in an article written by Neavling and published on July 24, 2024 in the Detroit Metro Times could be deemed by a jury to be defamatory of John Reid & Associates and its interview and interrogation techniques.

In her ruling on Defendant Trainum’s “Motion to Dismiss” Reid’s defamation lawsuit against Trainum, Judge Bosier stated “the Court finds that Plaintiff (Reid) can establish a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage for defamation per quod (Count II) and injurious falsehood/commercial disparagement (Count III).”

While Trainum denied during his deposition having made the published statements which Neavling testified under oath that he attributed to Trainum (e.g., that the Reid Technique endorses confinement of a criminal suspect for hours while threatening imprisonment and then promising leniency in exchange for a confession), the Judge sided with Neavling, stating “In his deposition, Mr. Neavling unequivocally answers questions in the affirmative about whether he spoke with Defendant about the content of the excerpts and whether he accurately reported his conversation.”

The court stated: “Conversely, almost all of Defendant’s (Trainum’s) responses about the details of his conversation with Mr. Neavling either did not answer the question or redirected his response by saying he merely provided his “usual spiel.”” Judge Bosier also stated: “Plaintiff (Reid) can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage of establishing actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Actual malice requires knowledge of a statement’s falsity or reckless disregard for its truth.”

Judge Bosier supplemented her assessments with the following analysis.

“As previously mentioned, Defendant has a background on the Reid Technique sufficient to create a “usual spiel” that he provides seemingly by second nature. He was trained in the use of the Reid Technique, he purchased Reid’s textbooks on the Reid Technique, he viewed Reid’s training materials, and he authored a book that describes the Reid Technique and contradicts the statements he made to the identified media outlets. In his book, Defendant states that “[a]ll this said, for many, the bottom line is that the interrogation tactics taught by the Reid Institute have been proved to be extremely effective in gathering true confessions from guilty suspects. Their use has resulted in untold numbers of crimes being solved.” (See p. 125 in Defendant’s book).

Notwithstanding the above, Defendant’s “usual spiel” to a reporter with twenty-four years of experience who takes contemporaneous notes and stated under oath that he accurately reported the interview reflects the contrary. Accordingly, a properly instructed jury could find the evidence supports Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth by clear and convincing evidence”

On February 24, 2026, Reid settled its lawsuit with Trainum under the presumption that both parties will be free to discuss the case and its implications without restriction. Reid has thereby achieved its vindication. While expressions of opinions are unquestionably constitutionally protected free speech, false statements of fact are not. This lawsuit was never about money but, instead, about clearing the record regarding John E. Reid & Associates’ eight-decade long commitment to protecting both innocent victims as well as conscientious investigative professionals who work tirelessly on victims’ behalf.

For a full and complete discussion of the entire case, including the judicial procedural history of the lawsuit, please see the attached PDF