01/29/2010NY Judge excludes false confession expert - supports The Reid Technique
In the Manhattan trial of Natavia Lowery, accused of killing Linda Stein, the court rejected the proposed testimony on false confessions of Ohio forensic psychologist Solomon Fulero, stating that, "Fulero would have nothing to contribute that a jury, properly guided by careful instructions, could not determine for themselves." The judge further stated that, "Fulero's offered nothing of scientific or evidentiary value to support his claim that the Reid technique leads to an increase in false confessions."
Click here for additional detail.
01/20/2010Anatomy of the bait question in interviews Part 1
Written by:
Louis C. Senese, Vice President, John E. Reid and Associates

The bait question is a non-accusatory question in which the possible existence of incriminating evidence is implied for the purpose of enticing the subject to change or consider changing his original statements. The bait question may be based on real or fictitious evidence.
Click here for the complete article
01/01/2010Investigators Tip: Jan-Feb 2010
It is human nature to seek acclaim and recognition. Given the choice, most people would rather be well known and respected than an obscure outsider who is unimportant and ignored...
The Esteem-Motivated Offender
01/01/2010New Canadian Law Column: The connection between an exculpatory statement and forming reasonable grounds.
I. Make the Call

You are a uniform officer on patrol.

You stop a man. He resembles a man you know to be wanted. You know an arrest warrant exists for the man he resembles. The stopped man tells you that he is the brother of the wanted man. But, the resemblance can't be ignored.

Make the call. Arrest him or let him go?

Is he lying? Realistically, do you have the time and resources investigate this claim? Or do you let him go - a huge risk if he is lying.

An arrest warrant creates another paradox in the countless catch-22 situations in frontline policing. An arrest warrant "commands" the arrest of the person named on the warrant. That means no discretion - when an officer finds the named person, the arrest must be made. There is no discretion about letting him go at the street-level. No release - no decision. Bring him to the police station. Violating that "command" is a serious issue - obstruct justice. And, it's negligent because of the potential danger of repeat crime.

But, preventing wrongful arrests is just as important as upholding public safety - the balance between privacy and protection. That's why reasonable grounds of identity has to be proved to make the arrest.

Nature complicates frontline policing. Sometimes, a wanted person has brothers. Brothers resemble each other. When does a resemblance constitute reasonable grounds? When does a resemblance need more investigation?
Click here for the complete story
11/04/2009Legal Update Summer 2009
The Legal Update for Summer 2009 features 32 cases which address such issues as:
  • Court rejects testimony of Dr. Richard Leo on false confession issue
  • Expert testimony on fabrication of confessions by inmate informants rejected
  • Court rejects claim confession was involuntary due to marijuana and alcohol use
  • Court upholds Miranda waiver by 15 year old
  • Court upholds Miranda waiver of 14 year old
  • Appeals court reverses admissibility of a confession from an 11 year old because of the interrogator's behavior
  • Ambiguous request to stop the interrogation - "this conversation is over"
  • Ambiguous request for an attorney - "I don't know if I need an attorney or not"
  • Court rejects claim that officers created an environment that caused defendant's will to be overborne
  • Court finds that interrogator conduct "overbore" defendant's will and rules that the confession is inadmissible
  • "Custody does not occur merely because the suspect submits to and fails a polygraph test"
  • Confession suppressed when suspect questioned in his home without Miranda advisement
  • Telling the suspect that the prosecutor will be advised of their cooperation does not constitute a promise of leniency; suggesting the homicide was an accident or self-defense was not coercive
  • What constitutes a threat during an interrogation?
  • What constitutes permissible deception by the police during an interrogation?
  • A fake polygraph test did not render involuntary the defendant's incriminating statement
  • Can an interrogator tell a suspect "this is just between you and me" when, in fact, the interrogation is being recorded and the recording will be used against the suspect?
  • What IQ score precludes a defendant from making a knowing and intelligent waiver of their rights?
  • No federal requirement to electronically record interrogation
  • Confession ruled inadmissible because of faulty advisement of rights
  • Juvenile's confession ruled inadmissible because of several violations of the Texas Family Code
  • Confession found inadmissible due to threats and promises from the investigators
  • Court rejects opinion of defense expert, Dr. Christopher Lamps, on coerced confession and waiver of rights issues
  • Value of video taping the interrogation
  • Court finds confession inadmissible because the Miranda rights were not properly explained to the defendant - a 15 year-old with "borderline intellectual functioning"
  • Interrogators misrepresentation of evidence is insufficient to make the otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible
  • Interrogator's repeated references that he could help the suspect rendered the confession involuntary
  • The interrogator's implication of leniency in exchange for cooperation is not coercive
  • Telling the suspect that if he tells the truth it could be in his benefit to do so and exaggerating the strength of the evidence against him does not render a confession involuntary
  • Court refuses to let Dr. Jarvis Wright testify on false confessions
  • Court rejects claims that there was an unambiguous request for an attorney; that the defendant's mental problems caused him to be more receptive to police coercion; and, that the fact the police lied about the evidence was coercive

Click here for Complete List
10/22/2009Reid Interview Software now available
John E. Reid and Associates is pleased to announce the availability of the Computer Employment Application (CEA) - a software program that will interview your job applicants for you. The CEA is web based so that the applicant can access the CEA 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

The CEA is not a static list of generic questions, but is an expert system that interviews applicants just as an experienced interviewer would, specifically responding to the applicant's answers and utilizing the appropriate follow up questions to develop additional information. The CEA functions as an interactive application that segues to appropriate lines of questioning and fact gathering dependent on the applicant's response to the initial question. This built-in expertise encourages and makes it easier for the applicant to provide complete and accurate data and, because of its structure, helps to minimize embellishments or omissions that frequently occur on written application forms.

THE VALUE OF THE CEA

The CEA provides a structured, objective and consistent interview process. The CEA is designed to explore the applicant's answers so as to ascertain the complete truth. By identifying high risk applicants early in the process, the organization will save a significant amount of time and money. The CEA provides better information than a more thorough interview or traditional background investigation.

PRIMARY AREAS OF INQUIRY

The CEA questions the applicant thoroughly in the following areas of inquiry:
  • Applicant Personal Information
  • Education
  • Employment Activities (Work History)
  • Military History
  • Dishonest Conduct
  • Integrity
  • Criminal Record
  • Undetected Crimes
  • Driving Convictions Last 5 years
  • Pending Law Enforcement Charges
  • Use of Drugs Illegally (in compliance with ADA)
  • Purchase/Sale of Drugs Illegally
  • Alcohol Use (job related - in compliance with ADA)
A written report is issued for every applicant detailing the information provided by that individual in all of the areas of inquiry.
For additional information click here
10/07/2009New 4 part article on the Canadian Supreme Court decisions which have revised the framework for Charter violations, the meaning of
Section 24(2) Charter: Rule changes - the "revised framework." Part 1

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Canada changed the rules again, in a series of landmark decisions released on July 17, 2009. However, unlike the NHL, the criminal justice system cannot shut down for a year to re-group. Rule changes in frontline policing happen at an alarming rate and are on-going.

The landmark cases are:
R. v. Grant
R. v. Suberu
R. v. Harrison
R. v. Shepherd
The changes include:
  1. A "revised framework" for determining the admissibility of evidence obtained after a Charter violation. 
  2. Re-wording of the definition of "detention."
  3. Four points-of-reference regarding "how to apply" the revised framework.
Click here for Part 1.

Section 24(2) Charter: rule changes - the "revised framework" Part 2 contemporary rules for "Investigation Detention"

Investigative detentions are not created equal. There are two classifications of investigative detentions: Charter detention and non-Charter detention.

The right to counsel applies to Charter detentions - the suspect must be informed of the right to counsel when a Charter detention occurs. Conversely, the right to counsel does not apply to a non-Charter detention - the suspect does not have to be informed of the right to counsel.

The differences between Charter detention and non-Charter detention are: (i) duration (ii) place (iii) type of questioning: purpose, extent and content dialogue, and (iv) exit access: whether the suspect was free to leave at any time.

Click here for Part 2

Section 24(2) Charter: rule changes - the "revised framework" Part 3.1 - contemporary rules for "Investigation Detention"

I. Make the Call

You are a uniform police officer on patrol

4:00 pm: Radio broadcast #1: male person attempting to use a stolen credit card at the liquor store, 2825 Brooklyn Road. A back-up officer is sent.

4:05pm: Radio broadcast #2: the backup arrives first, before you. She informs you by radio that two male suspects are present.

4:08 pm: Arrival. The back-up officer is already inside the liquor store. Investigation reveals the following: 
- upon entering the store, you see the officer, one employee, and two men.
- the officer is at a cash register talking to the store employee and one of the men (suspect #1)
- the second man (suspect #2) walks past you and says, "He did this, not me, so I guess I can go." This man walks to the door and is leaving.
Click here for Part 3.1

Section 24(2) Charter: rule changes - the "revised framework" Part 3.2 - Implied demand: Applying Grant

I. Implied Demand: point-of-reference

"Wait a minute. I need to talk to you before you go anywhere."

In R. v. Suberu (2009), the SCC applied the Grant 3-step decision-making model to decide whether this police statement constituted an "implied demand." It did not.

II. Two Stages of Investigative Detention

In R. v. Suberu (2009), the SCC divided an investigation detention into stages: (a) pre-exploratory questioning (the pedestrian stop - the initial stage), and (b) post-exploratory questioning (Charter detention - formal interrogation). This common-sense approach makes investigative detention a work-in-progress, a process that changes from investigative detention into a sec. 495 CC arrest or a release.

Investigative detention is built in stages. Each stage is defined by the volume of information. The starting point of investigative detention is uncertainty, during the hectic moments following a crime-in-progress. Every investigative detention starts with limited information - mere suspicion - and leads to a decision: make a sec. 495 arrest or release. The decision depends on belief - the amount of information known or not known - all with a time clock ticking.

The twin-goals of investigative detention are self-protection and find the truth. This requires changing the belief from mere suspicion to either reasonable grounds or no belief of connection.

Investigation detention progresses only if more incriminating evidence is obtained - more information is learned. As additional evidence connects the suspect to a crime, the detention lengthens, triggering the need for the right to counsel. Click here for part 3.2

Section 24(2) Charter: the "revised framework" for determining the admissibility of evidence Part 4.1: Investigative detention not justified on a "hunch"

I. The sec. 24(2) Charter Pendulum Swings Back

On July 17, 2009, the SCC reversed a controversial Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Harrison which dealt with the police seizure of 35 kg of cocaine during a traffic stop. Despite a "flagrant" Charter violation, the Ont. CA had admitted the seized cocaine because the offence was more severe than the Charter violation. This ruling marked a significant sec. 24(2) Charter pendulum swing.

However, in July of this year, by applying the new sec. 24(2) Charter decision-making model established in R. v. Grant (2009), the Supreme Court of Canada excluded the drugs, allowed the accused's appeal, and acquitted the accused.

Click here for part 4.


08/18/2009Newspaper article on Reid seminar
Reid seminar instructor Sergio Parisi recently presented our four day training program on The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation for the Floyd County Prosecutor's office. From an article on their web page the News and Tribune wrote "Local detectives received "world-class" training in the art of interrogation and interviewing this week at Ivy Tech Community College in Sellersburg."

"The weeklong seminar -- which teaches investigators how to evaluate verbal and nonverbal behavior and various techniques for obtaining information through asking questions - was sponsored by the Floyd County Prosecutor's office and hosted by Ivy Tech's criminal justice program."

"Prosecutor Keith Henderson said resources have been poured into forensic sciences as new technology develops, but interviews and interrogations are still equally as important to an investigation."
Click here for the complete newspaper article.
Click Here to view earlier "What's New"