Interviewing and Testimony

Chapter 10

Interview vs Interrogation

Interview:Designed to elicit information from witnesses

and persons of interest. No implication of guilt.

Interrogation: Involve persons thought to be perpetrators of

crime. Guilty knowledge generally assumed.

Police Investigations

Rely on witnesses, victims, and suspects to fill in the details surrounding the crime Who was involved, what happened, where

and when did it happen, how did it happen, why did it happen

Evidence is collected through interviews, interrogations, and confessions

Police Interviews There are two goals of a police

interviews/interrogations: Obtain a confession Gain information that will further the

investigation (e.g., the location of evidence)

Interviewing Suspects

Why Would A Suspect Confess? Believes evidence against them is strong Is sorry for their crime Is reacting to pressure (from police or

stress)

Interrogation Techniques In general, interrogations techniques (tactics)

can be broken down into two categories: Minimization: (‘manipulation’)

Soft sell tactics that provide a sense of false security

Maximization: (‘intimidation’) Scare tactics that attempt to intimidate suspects

‘Appeal’- in the suspect’s best interest to confess

The Reid Model of Interrogation Most common interrogation method used in

Canada Involves 3 general stages:

Gather evidence Conduct a non-accusatorial interview to

assess deception/guilt Conduct an accusatorial interrogation to

obtain a confession

(continued)

The Reid Model of Interrogation

The psychology behind this technique is to make the anxiety associated with deception greater than the anxiety related to the consequences of confessing

Problems with the Reid Model of Interrogation

Assumes that police officers can accurately detect deception when little evidence supports this assumption

Officers enter the accusatorial interrogation with the belief that the suspect is guilty, which can lead to inappropriate biases

Coercive techniques used in this model may elicit false confessions

Recent Changes to Interrogations Videotaping interrogations is becoming

more common Benefits include:

Protects police against false allegations of abuse

Protects citizens from police coercion Allows courts to make informed

decisions

Interviewing Victims and Eyewitnesses

o Question style can have a substantial effect on kinds of information produced

o Open questions – “what happened?”o Closed questions – “were you scared?”

o ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers

o Leading questions – “was the car red?”o Misinformation effects

Interviewing Vulnerable or Intimidated Victims/Eyewitnesses

Who are they?Those under 17 years oldThose with learning/physical disabilitiesThose with mental disorders/illnessThose suffering from fear or distress

History of Child Witnesses In the early 1900s the prevailing negative

attitudes towards child witnesses were tested Results indicated children were highly

suggestible and capable of providing inaccurate testimony

Research in the area increase during the 1970s when expert testimony was gaining acceptance and adult eyewitness research was getting noticed

Also, the legal community showed interest in research regarding child witnesses, due in part to the number of reported abuse cases involving children

Stepwise Interview

Interview commonly used in Canada Initially, children are asked free recall

type questions, followed with more specific questions, as needed

Interview procedure is consistent with knowledge about children’s recall abilities and how to elicit accurate information

Cognitive Interview

Based on memory retrieval techniques: Cognitive reinstatement Report everything Recall event in different orders Change perspectives

Changing perspectives has been called into question for facilitating inaccurate information

Enhanced Cognitive Interview The following components were added to

the original Cognitive Interview: Rapport building Supportive interviewer behaviour Transfer of control Focused retrieval Witness compatible questioning

Cognitive Interview: Results

Both types of cognitive interviews elicit more information than “standard police interviews”, without an increase in inaccurate information

It still remains unclear as to which components of the cognitive interview elicit this increase in accurate information

Problems with the CI Approach

Errors if used inaccurately or by untrained interviewers

Police officers not trained in appropriate interview techniques

Time consuming

Testimony

Evidence produced by a witness or suspect in a criminal case

Act of memory retrieval Subject to misremembering

When testimony by a witness is given in a criminal trial, chances of a suspect being convicted are very high

Factors Affecting Eyewitness Performance

Amount of time for observation Distance from person or event Visibility and/or obstruction Known or seen before Salient or novel more memorable Time lapse Errors or inaccurate testimony Stress/fear (narrows focus) Violence/presence of a weapon

Factors relating to the person (witness)

AgeChildren & older adults not so good

RaceSame race or across race identification

ExpectationsWhat is most likely given the situation?

Pressure to performThe helpful witness!

Factors Influencing Retention of Info

Length of retention interval Post-event suggestions

Available to witness between original event and subsequent attempts to recall it

Confabulations and distortions Retrieval factors

Actions vs. physical descriptionsConfidence-accuracy relationship

Factors Influencing Eyewitness Identification

Format of the line-up Instructions given the witness The influence of line-up administrators Exposure to suspects in line-ups through

previous identifications

Line-up Procedures

Witnesses are frequently asked to identify a culprit from a lineup

Lineups contain the suspect who is placed among a set of individuals who are known to be innocent for the crime in question, called foils or distractors

Line-up Procedures

Simultaneous line-up: Present all line-up members at the same time to the witness. Encourages witnesses to make a relative judgement

Sequential line-up: Members are presented one at a time, must decide if it is or is not the criminal before seeing another photo/person. Encourages witnesses to make absolute judgements

Summary for line-ups

Line-ups should be presented sequentially Individual conducting line-up should not know

the identity of suspect Warn witnesses that suspect may or may not be

in line-up Additional line-up members should be based on

description of perpetrator No feedback given during or after a line-up Confidence ratings