"Investigations vs. Confessions"

Per the text, approximately 81% of suspects in criminal cases waive their Miranda rights. Discuss two (2) factors that contribute to the low number of suspects who exercise their Miranda rights. Take a position on whether or not it is ethical for investigating officers to attempt to obtain a waiver of Miranda rights. What is your rationale?
Review the factors listed in Box 6.4 “The Innocence Project” in Chapter 6 of your textbook that contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Research a police department (maybe one in your area) and state one method they use to lessen the instances of false confessions. Remember to consider the factors stated by the Innocence Project.

attachment
Chapter6ForensicPsychologyandlaw.pdf
147

Chapter 6

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, INTERROGATIONS, AND CONFESSIONS

In this chapter, you will become familiar with:

The rights of individuals when arrested and subjected to interrogation Strategies police use to elicit confessions The reasons people confess to crimes The frequency of false confessions

• • • •

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

POLICE INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS

A confession is perhaps the most compelling evidence that can be pre- sented in a criminal trial. A confession, even when subsequently retracted, can infl uence jury verdicts (Kassin & Sukel, 1997). Most jurors view con- fessions as accurate accounts of a defendant ’ s culpability. Indeed, it is likely that the majority of confessions are valid, in that the suspect actually committed a criminal act. However, it is sometimes the case that confes- sions are false. In these cases, a suspect confesses to a crime he or she did not actually commit. In this chapter, we consider the factors that can lead to a false confession.

In order to understand the factors that can contribute to a false confession, one must distinguish between personal and situational risk factors (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). Some individuals are more susceptible to respond to interrogative coercion by being more compliant or more suggestible. Younger suspects, particularly adolescents, or individuals with mental health problems may be more vulnerable to interrogation tactics. Intelligence, drug or alcohol use, and stress are other personal risk factors that may increase the likelihood of a false confession. In contrast, situational risk factors involve the particular techniques used to extract the confession, the time of

c06.indd 147c06.indd 147 11/3/09 5:42:03 PM11/3/09 5:42:03 PM

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 0 . W i l e y .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY AN: 309009 ; Roesch, Ronald, Hart, Stephen D., Zapf, Patricia A..; Forensic Psychology and Law Account: strayer.main.eds-live

148 Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions

day the interrogation was conducted, or the length of the interrogation. We review both personal and situational risk factors later in this chapter.

Most people believe that they would never falsely confess to a crime, so they cannot imagine that others would do so. People also tend to believe that confessions stem from individual rather than situational factors. This is known as a fundamental attribution error , which is the tendency to overemphasize dispositional or personality – based explanations for an indi- vidual ’ s behavior while minimizing situational or external causes (Ross, 1977). When applied to confession evidence, this suggests that jurors would interpret a confession as refl ecting the actual guilt of a defendant and discount the possibility of external causes, such as coercion.

Hugo Munsterberg, whose seminal book, On the Witness Stand , is dis- cussed in Chapter 1 of this text, was perhaps the fi rst psychologist to write about the false confession phenomenon. Munsterberg was convinced that a man who had been hanged for murder had falsely confessed to the crime. The press at the time heard of Munsterberg ’ s comments on this case and he became the target of news stories and editorials attacking his view. It is unknown whether this man had actually falsely confessed, but the notion that it is possible that people do falsely confess remained diffi cult to accept until a number of cases surfaced beginning in the 1960s showing that false confessions can and do occur.

Review of Legal Cases

Given the implications of a confession, it is not surprising that there is a considerable amount of case law and research that has addressed the issue of ensuring that a suspect ’ s rights are protected and that a confession is made voluntarily and without coercion. The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) held that prior to interrogating a suspect, police must inform individuals of their legal rights. Ernesto Miranda was an indigent defendant who was arrested in Arizona on charges of kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated and signed a confession, and was ultimately found guilty of the charges. He did not have a lawyer present during interroga- tion nor was he asked if he wanted to have an attorney present. In a prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) recognized a suspect ’ s right to an attorney during police interrogation. In Miranda , the Supreme Court extended this ruling by requiring police to warn suspects prior to interrogation or questioning of several rights, including the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, the right to the presence of an attorney, and the right to free counsel if they cannot afford the cost of an attorney. These warnings are viewed as strengthening an individual ’ s protection against self – incrimination during

c06.indd 148c06.indd 148 11/3/09 5:42:04 PM11/3/09 5:42:04 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

police interrogation. Miranda requires that an interrogation must cease if at any time prior to or during questioning a suspect states a wish to remain silent or to have an attorney present. Once an attorney is requested, the suspect must be given an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have the attorney present during any subsequent questioning. Miranda ’ s conviction was overturned, but he was subsequently tried without the con- fession evidence. He was convicted and served 11 years in prison.

A suspect may waive his or her rights under Miranda , but this requires that the rights be waived “ voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently before interrogation can commence, otherwise the resulting confession will be inadmissible ” ( Miranda , p. 479), and further that “ any evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive the privilege ” ( Miranda , p. 475). Miranda thus requires fi rst that a suspect understand the nature of the rights that are being waived, and second, that any waiver of those rights is made voluntarily. The Miranda decision has survived a number of challenges, including an attempt by Congress to overturn it, but it has been affi rmed in subsequent cases (see Dickerson v. United States , 2000).

It is perhaps surprising that only about one in fi ve suspects exercise their Miranda rights (Leo, 1996). Police estimate that 81% of suspects waive their rights. Given that interrogation is inherently a stressful and risky situ- ation, the exercise of the right to silence would make a good deal of sense as an avoidance response. So why do so many suspects waive their rights? Costanzo (2004) suggests several reasons, including the fact that detectives deemphasize Miranda warnings, innocent suspects want to show they have nothing to hide, and guilty suspects don ’ t want to appear uncooperative. Costanzo adds that many suspects may not fully appreciate they are waiving their rights. White (2003) writes that police may use a variety of coercive techniques that are questionably legal, but adds that these techniques are dif- fi cult to prove that they resulted in a nonvoluntary waiver of Miranda rights.

Kassin and Norwick (2004) conducted a laboratory experiment to under- stand why most people waive their rights. The study involved 72 participants who were guilty or innocent of a mock theft. Prior to their interrogation, they were given instructions to avoid going to trial or be acquitted at trial. The participants were confronted by either a neutral, sympathetic, or hostile male “ detective ” who sought a waiver of their Miranda rights. Overall, about 58% of all suspects waived their rights, but over 80% of the innocent suspects waived their rights. Kassin and Norwick noted that these participants had a “ na ï ve faith in the power of their own innocence to set them free ” (p. 218), and they conclude that “ Miranda warnings may not adequately protect from police authority the people who may need it most, those falsely accused of crimes they did not commit ” (p. 218).

Police Interrogations and Confessions 149

c06.indd 149c06.indd 149 11/3/09 5:42:04 PM11/3/09 5:42:04 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

150 Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions

The issue of appreciation of rights is central to a valid waiver. Grisso (1981) conceptualizes appreciation of the signifi cance of rights to com- prise three main parts:

One: Suspects must recognize the interrogative nature of police questioning. Two: Suspects must perceive the defense attorney as an advocate for them, and be willing to disclose confi dential information to him or her (appreciation of the right to counsel). Three: Suspects must perceive the right to silence as a right that cannot be revoked, and that statements made by suspects can be used in court (appreciation of the right to silence).

An intelligent waiver of rights suggests that a suspect understands the lan- guage used in Miranda warnings. A number of studies suggest that the vocabulary used in some Miranda warnings may exceed the comprehen- sion and reading level of some suspects. For example, Rogers, Hazelwood, Sewell, Harrison, and Shuman (2007) studied 356 different (written) English language versions of Miranda warnings (that there are so many variations of the Miranda warning is somewhat troubling in itself). They tested each version for reading level and found that they varied from ele- mentary school to college. They found that the majority of the warnings required at least a seventh – grade reading level, with less than 1% of the warnings readable at a fi fth – grade level (about 1% required college level reading ability!). Thus, the reading level of most Miranda warnings may exceed the capability of a substantial number of suspects.

Factors such as mental illness or mental retardation may also affect the accused ’ s ability to make a knowing and voluntary waiver. Suspects with anxiety disorders, for example, may make a false confession as a way of escaping from the anxiety of an interrogation (Leo & Ofshe, 1998). Individuals with intellectual defi cits may become confused, have a desire to please authority fi gures such as detectives, be more suggestible, or not fully appreciate the implications of a confession. Gudjonsson (2003) cites the case of Earl Washington, a mentally retarded man who confessed to murder and rape and was convicted and sentenced to death, despite the fact that he recanted his confession. His case was appealed on the basis that he had not voluntarily confessed and that he did not knowingly and intelli- gently waive his Miranda rights. He spent 18 years in prison before DNA evidence showed that he could not have committed the crime.

Rogers, Harrison, Hazelwood, and Sewell (2007) estimated that nearly 700,000 individuals with mental disorders are arrested annually in the United States. These authors administered Miranda comprehension measures to a sample of 107 mentally disordered defendants (MDOs), and

• •

•

c06.indd 150c06.indd 150 11/3/09 5:42:05 PM11/3/09 5:42:05 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

found that most defendants lacked good comprehension on all but the sim- plest Miranda warnings (those requiring less than a sixth – grade reading level). About one – fourth of the sample had substantial defi cits on measures of intellectual ability and general personality adjustment. This study raises serious questions about the ability of many mentally disordered suspects to waive their arrest rights.

Youth Capacity to Understand Arrest Rights

The Kent and Gault decisions (see Chapter 8 for a review of these two cases) establish the rights of youth in a variety of legal contexts. The age at which youth can be charged varies by state, but generally is between 8 and 18. Prior to Gault , youth were rarely represented by an attorney. Case law has now established that youth do have the right to an attorney. In Fare v. Michael C . (1979), the Supreme Court adopted the adult standard in a case involving a youth, and noted that the test allowed judicial review of factors such as a juvenile ’ s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence in evaluating whether the youth had the capacity to understand the warnings, the nature of his or her rights, and the consequences of waiv- ing those rights. Thus, the rights established in Miranda apply to youth, and police now routinely read youth their rights prior to interrogation. As we will see, the age of young suspects may require special protections to ensure their rights are protected. The likelihood of false confessions is higher for youth compared to adults. Drizin and Leo (2004), in a study discussed in more detail later in this chapter, reported that 35% of their sample of 125 proven false confessions were under the age of 17.

An example of a Miranda waiver form used by police for juvenile sus- pects in Washington State is shown in Box 6.1. It includes the four tradi- tional Miranda warnings as well as two additional prongs utilized in some U.S. jurisdictions. Roesch, McLachlan, and Viljoen (2007) reported that a Flesch – Kincaid reading level analysis conducted on the Washington State warning form yielded a reading grade level of 9.2. This suggests that in order for youth to be able to read this warning, they would have to be able to read at about a ninth – grade level. This diffi culty level is concern- ing, given the fact that youth much younger than 14 years old (a typical age for ninth – grade students) may be presented with the same form, and also that even those who are 14 years or older may have reading lev- els below the ninth – grade level. Indeed, research by Viljoen and Roesch (2005) indicated that the average IQ of a sample of youth in detention was 83, with reading levels well below ninth – grade. This study suggests that many youth would have diffi culty understanding the vocabulary used in Miranda warnings.

Police Interrogations and Confessions 151

c06.indd 151c06.indd 151 11/3/09 5:42:05 PM11/3/09 5:42:05 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

152 Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions

Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Rights

Grisso (1998) developed a forensic assessment instrument called the Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights to assist mental health professionals in evaluating whether an individual made a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights at the time of interrogation. Four subtests measure various aspects of comprehension and understanding of rights. Each of the subtests are scored separately and judged relative to one another to determine the level of understanding and appreciation of interrogation rights, and no total comprehension score is derived. The four subtests are:

Comprehension of Miranda Rights (CMR) assesses examinees ’ understanding of the four elements of a standard rights warning by asking them to paraphrase the mean- ing of each right in four items (e.g., “ You do not have to make a statement and have the right to remain silent. ” ).

Comprehension of Miranda Rights – Recognition (CMR – R) requires little verbal skill and requires examinees to compare the four elements of a typical rights warning with a pool of statements including accurate and inaccurate rewordings of each of the sentences. This subtest comprises 12 items, with three semantic comparison items for each of the standard rights prongs.

Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary (CMV) requires examinees to provide defi – nitions of six words contained in the interrogation warnings (e.g., attorney and interrogation ).

I have the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all. Any statement that I do make can and will be used against me in a court of law. I have the right to consult with and have an attorney present before and during questioning or the making of any statement. If I desire an attorney but cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for me at public expense prior to any questioning. I may exercise these rights at any time before or during questioning. If I am under 18 years of age I am considered a juvenile, but I do realize that this matter may be remanded to adult court for criminal prosecution, where I would be treated as an adult in all respects.

After initialing each of the above statements, the youth is asked to sign the form after reading the following:

I understand each of these rights that I have read or had read to me. I under- stand that I may exercise these rights at any time before or during questioning. I do wish to waive my right to remain silent, and I do wish to waive my right to an attorney at this time.

From R. Roesch, K. McLachlan, & J. L. Viljoen (2007), p. 268.

• • •

•

• •

•

Box 6.1 Washington State’s Miranda Warning for Youth

c06.indd 152c06.indd 152 11/3/09 5:42:06 PM11/3/09 5:42:06 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Function of Rights in Interrogation (FRI) assesses the examinee ’ s appreciation of the importance of rights in an interrogation and legal situations generally. This subtest comprises three subsections, each assessing appreciation of the signifi cance of the warning in different areas including: recognition of the nature of interrogation (NI), signifi cance of the right to counsel (RC), and signifi cance of the right to silence (RS). Examinees are presented with a series of four pictures in which youth are shown interacting with various criminal justice fi gures, including police offi cers, a lawyer, and a court scenario. They are read a short description of what is happening in a given picture, and then asked questions about the scenario (e.g., “ What is it that the police want Joe to do? ” ).

Research has shown that younger children are more likely to have reduced capacity to understand their rights. In one study, Viljoen and Roesch (2005) administered Grisso ’ s measure to 152 male and female defendants aged 11 to 17 in a detention center in Washington State. They found that age signifi – cantly predicted overall comprehension of rights, with younger adolescents demonstrating more impaired comprehension than older adolescents. Roesch and colleagues (2007) commented that coupled with anxiety that may be present under questioning by police, it is possible that many youth, espe- cially younger ones, do not adequately understand their rights.

Given these fi ndings, what can be done to protect the rights of youth? One suggestion is to require the presence of an adult before a youth could waive rights. This could be an attorney, but some states also allow a par- ent or other interested adult as a substitute. However, the expectation that parents would help ensure understanding and protect the rights of their child may sometimes not be realized in practice. Parents may place coercive pressures on youth to talk to the police because they are upset or angry with their child. They also may advise their children to waive their right to an attorney, encourage them to cooperate, and even adopt an adversarial attitude toward their own children. In their study of youth in pretrial detention, Viljoen, Klaver, and Roesch (2005) found 89% of youth indicated their parents wanted them to confess or tell the truth, 11% indi- cated that their parents wanted them to deny the offense, and none reported that their parents advised them to remain silent.

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

In 1930, police detectives interrogated Tony Colletti, an 18 – year – old man whose wife had been murdered. Although he denied any involvement, police suspected he had killed his wife. Leo (2004) describes his interrogation:

At the station house during the next 26 hours, Colletti was questioned con- tinuously in relays, lied to, threatened, yelled at, cursed, deprived of food and water, made to stand for hours, forced to stay awake, slapped, slugged

Interrogation Techniques 153

c06.indd 153c06.indd 153 11/3/09 5:42:06 PM11/3/09 5:42:06 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

154 Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions

with bare fi sts, stripped naked, and beaten with a rubber hose until he no longer denied killing his wife and fi nally agreed to sign a confession acknowledging guilt. (pp. 37 – 38)

Colletti later recanted the confession, claiming it was made under duress. It is not known whether he did kill his wife, because he hanged himself in jail prior to his trial. Leo (2004) notes that the techniques used to extract his confession, known in the popular culture as the third degree , were widely used by police in the 1920s and 1930s. The practice declined in the 1940s and by the 1950s, a new approach began to emerge. Modern inter- rogation techniques no longer use such strong – arm tactics, but rely instead on a more psychological approach that may involve deceptive techniques, including the presentation of false evidence.

Police offi cers and detectives receive extensive training on interviewing suspects. The most popular training approach is the Reid Technique . This approach was fi rst introduced by Inbau and Reid in 1962, and it has since been revised and developed in several editions, with the most recent one authored by Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne in 2001.

Inbau and colleagues provide a detailed procedure for interrogating sus- pects, including advice about how to set up an interrogation room. The room should have minimal furniture (straightback chairs and a table), with nothing on the walls. One – way mirrors are common, to allow for observa- tion from another room. Once the suspect is seated, interrogation begins, with the interrogator following the nine sequential steps that comprise the Reid Technique (Gudjonsson, 2003; Inbau et al., 2001; Leo, 2004):

1. Begin by confronting the suspect with his or her guilt. The interrogator states this confi dently, even in the absence of clear evidence. The accu- sation of guilt may be repeated several times. The interrogator observes the reactions of the suspect, looking for signs of deception.

2. Develop psychological “ themes ” that justify or excuse the crime. The interrogator displays understanding and sympathy as a means of obtain- ing the suspect ’ s trust. The themes suggested by the interrogator are designed to minimize guilt or provide possible excuses for committing the crime. “ In this way the suspect can accept physical responsibility for the crime while at the same time either minimizing the seriousness of it or the internal blame for it ” (Gudjonsson, 2003, p. 13).

3. Interrupt all statements of denial. “ Repeated denials by the suspect are seen as being very undesirable because they give the suspect a psycho- logical advantage ” (Gudjonsson, p. 17). Inbau and colleagues (2001) argue that there are differences in denials by guilty and innocent sus- pects. “ Innocent suspects ’ denials are said to be more spontaneous,

c06.indd 154c06.indd 154 11/3/09 5:42:07 PM11/3/09 5:42:07 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

forceful, and direct, whereas denials of guilty suspects are more defen- sive, qualifi ed, and hesitant ” (Gudjonsson, p. 17).

4. Overcome the suspect ’ s factual, moral, and emotional objections to the charges.

5. Ensure that the increasingly passive suspect does not tune out. The interrogator may do this by moving closer to the suspect, maintaining eye contact, and touching the suspect.

6. Show sympathy and understanding and urge the suspect to tell the truth. 7. Offer the suspect a face – saving alternative explanation for his or her

guilty action. The interrogator presents two possible alternatives to explain the crime, with one alternative serving a face – saving function while the other represents a more callous or repulsive motivation. Both implicate the suspect, but one is seen as a more positive explanation for the crime. Gudjonsson comments, “ It is a highly coercive procedure where suspects are pressured to choose between two incriminating alter- natives when neither may be applicable ” (p. 19).

8. Get the suspect to recount the details of the crime. This step follows from step 7 in which the suspect has accepted one of the alternative explanations. Once this occurs, the suspect is then asked to orally pro- vide details.

9. Convert that statement into a full written confession. The suspect signs the confession.

Kassin and McNall (1991) observed that the strategies used by inter- rogators following the Reid Technique fell into two general categories. In maximization , the interrogator uses “ scare tactics ” designed to intimidate a suspect into a confession. This intimidation is achieved by emphasiz- ing or even overstating the seriousness of the offense and the magnitude of the charges. Detectives might also make false or exaggerated claims about the evidence (e.g., by staging an eyewitness identifi cation or a rigged lie – detector test, by claiming to have fi ngerprints or other types of forensic evidence, or by citing admissions that were supposedly made by an accomplice). In minimization , interrogators provide a false sense of security by offering face – saving excuses, moral justifi cation, blaming a victim or accomplice, or playing down the seriousness of the charges. In the Central Park Jogger case (see Box 6.2 ), each of the fi ve boys who confessed minimized their own involvement while placing more blame on the other boys (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2003). Contrasting the two types of interrogation categories, Costanzo (2004) comments that “ maximization implies a threat of severe punishment and minimization implies a promise of leniency ” (p. 39).

Interrogation Techniques 155

c06.indd 155c06.indd 155 11/3/09 5:42:07 PM11/3/09 5:42:07 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

156 Police Investigations, Interrogations, and Confessions

Kassin and McNall (1991) conducted several laboratory studies to exam- ine how potential jurors perceived these interrogation approaches. They used transcripts from an actual interrogation in which these techniques were used and asked participants about their expectations for the sen- tence that might be received. Kassin (1997) concluded that these studies indicated that “ (a) the use of maximization raised sentencing expectations, leading participants to expect a harsher sentence . . . and (b) minimization lowered sentencing expectations, which led participants to anticipate leni- ency ” (p. 224). Gudjonsson (2003) comments that the Kassin and McNall

In 1989, a female jogger was beaten senseless raped, and left for dead in New York City’s Central Park. Her skull had multiple fractures, her eye socket was crushed, and she lost three quarters of her blood. She managed to survive, but she was and still is completely amnesic for the incident (Meili, 2003). Within 48 hours, solely on the basis of police-induced confessions, fi ve African American and Hispanic American boys, 14 to 16 years old, were arrested for the attack. All were ultimately tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. The crime scene betrayed a bloody, horrifi c act, but no physical traces at all of the defendants. Yet it was easy to understand why detectives, under the glare of a national media spot- light, aggressively interrogated the boys, at least some of whom were “wilding” in the park that night. It was also easy to understand why the boys were then pros- ecuted and convicted. Four of their confessions were videotaped and presented at trial. The tapes were compelling, with each and every one of the defendants describing in vivid—though, in many ways, erroneous—detail how the jogger was attacked, when, where, and by whom, and the role that he played. One boy stood up and reenacted the way he allegedly pulled off the jogger’s running pants. A second said he felt pressured by the others to participate in his “fi rst rape.” He expressed remorse and assured the assistant district attorney that he would not commit such a crime again. Collectively, the taped confessions persuaded police, prosecutors, two trial juries, a city, and a nation.

Thirteen years later, Matias Reyes, in prison for three rapes and a murder committed subsequent to the jogger attack, stepped forward at his own initia- tive and confessed. He said that he had raped the Central Park jogger and that he had acted alone. Investigating this new claim, the Manhattan district attorney’s offi ce questioned Reyes and discovered that he had accurate, privileged, and independently corroborated knowledge of the crime and crime scene. DNA testing further revealed that the semen samples originally recovered from the victim— which had conclusively excluded the boys as donors (prosecutors had argued at trial that the police may not have captured all the perpetrators in the alleged gang rape, but this did not mean they did not get some of them)—belonged to Reyes. In December 2002, the defendants’ convictions were vacated. The case of the Central Park jogger revealed fi ve false confessions resulting from a single investigation.

Excerpt from Kassin & Gudjonsson (2004, p. 34).

Box 6.2 The Central Park Jogger

c06.indd 156c06.indd 156 11/3/09 5:42:07 PM11/3/09 5:42:07 PM

EBSCOhost – printed on 5/9/2020 9:02 AM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

studies “ are important because they show that the techniques advocated by Inbau and his colleagues are inherently coercive in that they communicate implicit threats and promises to suspects ” (p. 21).

DETECTING DECEPTION

One of the assumptions made in the Reid Technique is that detectives can distinguish between truthful and untruthful suspects. Psychological research suggests there is little support for the assumption that investigators can rely on verbal and nonverbal cues to make accurate judgments about whether a suspect is lying or telling the truth (Meissner & Kassin, 2004).

Kassin and colleagues (2007) surveyed 574 investigators from 16 police departments in fi ve U.S. states and 57 customs offi cials from two Canadian provinces. They asked a series of questions about the inter- rogation process. In response to a question about their ability to detect lies, 77% said they could detect truthful and dishonest suspects. Kassin and colleagues comment that this fi gure far exceeds research fi ndings on accuracy, as other research by Kassin (Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, 2005) has shown that although police are more confi dent about their judg- ments of accuracy, they are actually no more accurate than lay people in detecting lies. Indeed, even with training, accuracy is only slightly better than chance.

Kassin ’ s research is consistent with one of the fi rst studies done on the ability to detect lying in interview situations. Ekman and O ’ Sullivan (1991) asked seven groups of participants to view videotaped inter- views of 10 university – aged women. They were told that half of the women were lying when they responded to questions about a fi lm they had seen. The seven groups were (1) Secret Service agents, (2) federal polygraphers, (3) robbery investigators, (4) judges, (5) psychiatrists, (6) a group of students who had taken a university extension course on deceit, and (7) undergraduate psychology students. Participants were asked to decide if each woman was lying or telling the truth. Were any of the groups accurate in detecting deception? Only one group, Secret Service agents, performed better than chance. Ekman and O ’ Sullivan comment that many Secret Service agents had been assigned to protection work, guarding important government offi cials from potential attack. They speculate that this type of work may increase reliance on nonverbal cues (e.g., through scanning crowds), so that Secret Service agents paid greater attention to nonverbal behavior in their study. However, a study by Mann, Vrij, and Bull (2004), which used videotapes of actual sus- pects, found that police offi cers in England were able to detect truth or lies at a rate better than chance (65%), with more experienced offi cers