Your Search found these items:
09/29/2013||Eight new PowerPoint presentations for your review|
Eight new PowerPoint presentations for your review. We have prepared 8 brief PowerPoint presentations for your review which address several current issues involving the Reid Technique and interrogation practices. |
Click Here To Watch
Current What's New:
7/18/2018||Exclusive Offer for Reid Graduates|
50% Off Refresher
Need a refresher? As a previous Reid Graduate you will receive 50% off when you register for any open enrollment, THE REID TECHNIQUE OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING AND ADVANCED INTERROGATION™ and/or THE REID TECHNIQUE OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING AND POSITIVE PERSUASION™ course.
You must call 800-255-5747, ext 14 or 24 to receive this offer. Previous attendance will require verification. Please be prepared to provide us with your original date of attendance.
7/9/2018||References to the Reid Technique in the world of literature |
In a murder mystery novel by Scott Pratt, entitled “Good Faith” (2018) the author makes the following reference to the Reid Technique:
“He thought briefly about how he would conduct the interrogations. The Reid technique was now standard operating procedure in law enforcement. Make the suspect as comfortable as possible. Make him think you’re there to help him. Try to find some common ground and get him talking – it didn’t matter what the conversation was about initially. The theory behind the Reid technique was that suspects would feel great and want to unload their burden. The officer was there to facilitate the cleansing of the spirit. Get him talking, eventually turn the conversation toward the crime, and gently persuade him to confess.”
7/3/2018||Independence Day Savings|
Independence Day Savings
Register for any of these open enrollment July courses and save.
4 Day INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING AND ADVANCED INTERROGATION™
$795 Regular Price - July Special $695
San Diego CA / July 10 - 13, 2018
Orlando FL / July 9 - 12, 2018
Baltimore MD / July 17 - 20, 2018
Tallahassee FL / July 24 - 27, 2018
Tucson AZ / July 24 - 27, 2018
The Independence Day savings are for the July open enrollment training programs listed above. Courses have limited seating! Register early to guarantee your seat. Use code INDEPENDENCE DAY when registering.
6/27/2018||One of our senior instructors, Attorney Philip Mullenix, has just published an excellent article in the Marine Corps Gazette entitled, “On Leadership: Core leadership traits.”|
Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:
It’s a fact that each of you possess skills in your underlying MOS and as a leader in the Marine Corps. Because you are a Marine, whether active duty or retired, you’ve reached a level of success that others only dream of achieving. Therefore, this is not a condescending missive on how to become a success. You’re already there.
What I offer are observations on lives well-spent as well as on opportunities lost. The perch from which I’ve made these observations is a little unorthodox. For almost four decades as a professional interrogator, military interrogation instructor, and lawyer, I’ve witnessed in others the full range of human behavior, from the best to the worst:
- Enormous achievement on one hand—full-blown failure on the other.
- Peace of mind and self-fulfillment on one hand—utter despair on the other.
- Well-earned respect—versus the most aberrant disregard toward others.
- The person of real substance who has the strength of character to watch the backs and raise the game of those around him—versus the self-promoting phony who tries to elevate himself by demeaning others.
What distinguishes one from the other? How does one rise to the occasion rather than fall by the wayside? How do leaders get to the figurative bow of the ship where you can cut your own wake through the waters of life rather than slide to the stern where others will decide your destiny and leave you awash in waves that could sweep you overboard? Here are a few observations which might enhance your “leadership quotient.”
Click here for the complete article
6/20/2018||Clarifying/Correcting Court Statements about the Reid Technique|
State v. Pico (2018)
In their opinion the court stated the following:
“During at least part of the interview, Detective Rich used what is known as the “Reid technique.” This technique involves telling the interviewee that law enforcement officials have certain incriminating evidence (which they do not, in fact, have), in the hope that the interviewee will disclose factually accurate details about the event in question.”
One of the core principals of the Reid Technique is to always conduct interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court in Frazier v. Cupp (1969) stated that misrepresenting evidence to a suspect “is, while relevant, insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible. These cases must be decided by viewing the “totality of circumstances….”
In our books and training program we advise the audience of this decision, but urge caution as to its application, stating:
- Introducing fictitious evidence during an interrogation presents a risk that the guilty suspect may detect the investigator’s bluff, resulting in a significant loss of credibility and sincerity. For this reason, we recommend that this tactic be used as a last resort effort.
- This tactic should not be used for the suspect who acknowledges that he may have committed the crime even though he has no specific recollections of doing so. Under this circumstance, the introduction of such evidence may lead to claims that the investigator was attempting to convince the suspect that he, in fact, did commit the crime.
- This technique should be avoided when interrogating a youthful suspect with low social maturity or a suspect with diminished mental capacity. These suspects may not have the fortitude or confidence to challenge such evidence and, depending on the nature of the crime, may become confused as to their own possible involvement if the police tell them evidence clearly indicates they committed the crime.
Dassey v. Dittman (2017)
from the dissenting opinion:
“Courts have long expressed concern about approaches such as the Reid Technique that rely on psychological coercion. Just four years after the first edition of the manual was published, (1962) the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona “repeatedly sighted and implicitly criticized” the Reid approach.”
The Supreme Court’s references to the Reid approach in the Miranda opinion were
informational with respect to the current state of law enforcement interrogation practices at that time. In the Miranda decision the US Supreme Court referenced the book, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions by Fred Inbau and John Reid (1962) and the predecessor book Lie Detection and Criminal Interrogation(1953) a combined total of eleven times.
for the exact text from the Miranda decision and the corresponding footnotes which reference the Inbau/Reid books:
Also from the dissenting opinion:
“For many years, the Reid technique has been criticized by scholars and experts for increasing the rate of false confessions. As far back as Miranda, the Supreme Court warned that “[e]ven without employing brutality, the ‘third degree’ ” used in the Reid technique “exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals,” and ‘may even give rise to a false confession.’”
The Miranda court did not say that the Reid technique “exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals.” Their comment was made in reference to custody. The US Supreme Court specifically stated, “...the very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty, and trades on the weakness of individuals.”
6/1/2018||Legal Updates Spring 2018|
The Legal Updates Spring 2018 column contains cases which address the following issues:
- Court finds Dr. Richard Leo’s testimony of false confessions to be unreliable
- Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Joseph Drumm on false confession issues
- Statements that suggest that judges or prosecutors may be more lenient on a defendant who they perceive as being honest and who “took responsibility” for his actions, do not promise any sort of leniency or guarantee any special treatment
- The value of recording the interrogation to refute the defendant’s claims
- Failure to consider and present expert testimony on the issue of false confessions was not indicative of ineffective counsel
- The value of recording to refute the defendant’s claims of coercion
- Court confirms acceptability of minimizing the moral seriousness of the offense
- Special Miranda warnings for juveniles in New York, as well as a special room for questioning
Click here for updates.
05/01/2018||May/June 2017 Investigator Tip: The Value of Behavior Provoking Questions – A Case Study |
The investigative interview process in the Reid Technique is called the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI). The BAI consists of three types of questions: Initial Questions designed to develop biographical information, establish rapport, acclimate the subject to the interview environment, describe the investigative process and establish a behavioral baseline for the subject.
The second group of questions are the Investigative Questions, which are designed to develop the subject’s story or version of events concerning the issue under investigation, his/her alibi during the time period in question, and the who, what, when, where, why and how of activities relevant to the issue under investigation. In previous Investigator Tips we discussed using open-ended questions to develop the subject’s pure version of events, and how to use follow up questions to develop additional details from their initial account. (See March/April 2017 and May/June 2017 Investigator Tips: Using Open-ended Questions During the Investigative Interview Part 1, and Part 2).
The third type of questions are the Behavior Provoking Questions designed to elicit responses that can be evaluated as to the subject’s credibility about their potential involvement in the issue under investigation. There have been in excess of 25 behavior provoking questions developed over the years but this Investigator Tip will only discuss four of them, and then illustrate their use in a case involving 2 subjects. Research has indicated that most truthful subjects answer the behavior provoking questions one way while deceptive subject’s answer the same questions in a very different way.
Click here for the complete Investigator Tip
04/06/2018||Legal Updates Winter 2018|
The Legal Updates Winter 2018 column contains cases which address the following issues:|
- When the interview became custodial the suspect should have been advised of his Miranda rights
- Promises on leniency nullify the admissibility of the confession
- Officer’s questions to defendant while at door of her residence, were compelling, thus giving rise to the need for Miranda warnings
- Lying about DNA evidence is not coercive
- Lying about footprints, fingerprints and other evidence is not coercive
- Court finds confession inadmissible due to denial of subject’s request for an attorney
- Court suggests police used Assistant Principal to question student to avoid the advisement of rights
Click Here to read the Winter 2018 Cases
03/28/2018||An example of Dr. Richard Leo’s testimony on the issue of false confessions|
In the case, US v. Begay (February 2018) the US District Court, D. New Mexico described Dr. Ricahrd Leo’s testimony as he described his view of current police interrogation methods, and false confession issues.|
Click here for the details.
01/26/2018||Clarifying Misrepresentations About Law Enforcement Interrogation Techniques|
Over the years social psychologists, defenses attorneys and some academicians have offered a number of criticisms of current law enforcement interrogation practices, and, in particular, the Reid Technique. Some of these criticisms are:
• the goal of an interrogation is to get a confession whether it is true or not
• investigators use minimization tactics in which they offer the suspect leniency if he confesses, and harsher punishment (maximization) if he does not
• investigators oftentimes interrogate innocent people whom they have erroneously classified as guilty
• investigators use coercive tactics and procedures to secure confessions
• investigators feed crime details to the suspect so that the authenticity of their incriminating statements is difficult to assess
• investigators lie to the suspect about evidence
• investigators do not modify their tactics when questioning juveniles or mentally impaired individuals
• the interrogation is designed to make the suspect feel isolated and hopeless so that he sees no way out except to confess
• the Reid Technique is a guilt presumptive approach
In this paper we will address each of these criticisms and set the record straight as to exactly what we teach with respect to law enforcement interrogation techniques, and the Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation in particular.
1/1/2018||Police Chief magazine article on the PEACE Method|
The November 2017 issue of Police Chief magazine features an article entitled, Bringing PEACE to the United States. The article is well written and provides the reader with a very clear explanation of the PEACE model - which is essentially an investigative interviewing process developed and used in the United Kingdom. Here is an abbreviated description of the PEACE interview process:
Planning and Preparation: Prepare thoroughly for the interview; understand the purpose of the interview; develop as much information as possible about the crime and the subject to be interviewed, and consider the case facts relative to the subjects to be interviewed. (See Reid Investigator Tip: Factual Analysis)
Engage and Explain: Establish rapport with the subject; treat the subject with dignity and respect; and explain to the subject the format and procedures that you are going to follow.
Account: Allow the subject to tell their story or version of events; expand and clarify the initial account; and, when appropriate, use evidence to challenge the account. (see Reid Investigator Tips: Using Open-ended Questions During the Investigative Interview (Part 1 and Part 2 and Cognitive Interviewing)
Closure: Confirm with the subject the information that was developed during the interview and explain to the subject what will happen next.
Evaluation: Determine if the goals and objectives of the interview have been accomplished and review the investigation in light of the information developed during the interview.
As an addendum, in the UK a subject’s silence can be used against them and the suspect is advised of this. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
• fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
• fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
• fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
(For additional information on interviewing techniques, see Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (5th ed, 2013) - in particular these Chapters: Preparation and Starting the Interview; Formulating Interview Questions; Behavior Symptom Analysis; Precautions when Evaluating Behavior Symptoms of Truthful and Untruthful Subjects; The Behavior Analysis Interview; and,The Use of Specialized Questioning Techniques)
Also, here is an article detailing the Reid Behavior Analysis Interview that was published in the International Journal of Police Science & Management.
12/28/2017||How defense attorneys describe the Reid Technique in the courtroom - and where they go wrong|
In Radilla-Esquivel v. Davis (December 2017) US District Court, W.D. Texas the defense attorney made a number of erroneous assertions about the Reid Technique. His statements (taken from the US District Court opinion) are in blue in the attached document, with the correct information detailed thereafter|
12/18/2017||Federal Appeals Court upholds confession of “Making a Murderer” subject Brendan Dassey|
In Dassey v. Dittmann (December 2017) the U.S.Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, upheld the admissibility of Brendan Dassey’sconfession, ruling that the “state court’s determination that defendantconfessed to murder voluntarily was not an unreasonable application of SupremeCourt precedent.” From the Court of Appeals decision:
Whether Dassey's confession was voluntary or not is measured againsta general standard that takes into account the totality of the circumstances….Some factors would tend to support a finding that Dassey's confession was notvoluntary: his youth, his limited intellectual ability, some suggestions by theinterrogators, their broad assurances to a vulnerable suspect that honestywould produce leniency, and inconsistencies in Dassey's confession. Many otherfactors, however, point toward a finding that it was voluntary. Dassey spokewith the interrogators freely, after receiving and understanding Miranda warnings,and with his mother's consent. The interrogation took place in a comfortablesetting, without any physical coercion or intimidation, without even raisedvoices, and over a relatively brief time. Dassey provided many of the mostdamning details himself in response to open–ended questions. On a number ofoccasions he resisted the interrogators' strong suggestions on particulardetails. Also, the investigators made no specific promises of leniency.
After the state courts found the confession voluntary, a federaldistrict court and a divided panel of this court found that the state courts'decision was unreasonable and that Dassey was entitled to a writ of habeascorpus…. The state courts' finding that Dassey's confession was voluntary wasnot beyond fair debate, but we conclude it was reasonable. We re–verse thegrant of Dassey's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
…. Turning to the techniques used in the interrogation, theinvestigators told Dassey many times that they already knew what had happenedwhen in fact they did not. Such deception is a common interview technique. Toour knowledge, it has not led courts (and certainly not the Supreme Court) tofind that a subject's incriminating answers were involuntary…. Also, most ofthe incriminating details in Dassey's confession were not suggested by thequestioners. He volunteered them in response to open–ended questions.
…. The requirement that courts take “special care” in analyzingjuvenile confessions does not call for habeas relief here. The state appellatecourt met the requirements for analyzing juvenile confessions by consideringDassey's age, his intellectual capacity, and the voluntary absence of hismother during the interrogation. The state court noted that the officers readDassey his Miranda rightsand that Dassey later remembered his rights and agreed to talk anyway. Thecourt assessed coercion in relation to Dassey's vulnerabilities, including his“age, intellectual limitations and high suggestibility.” The court did notlimit its inquiry to only whether the most abusive interrogation techniqueswere used. The court examined the tones and volumes of the investigators'voices, finding that the officers “used normal speaking tones, with nohectoring, threats or promises of leniency,” though they did prod Dassey to behonest and sought to establish a rapport with him. The court even consideredDassey's physical comfort by noting he sat on a sofa and was offered food,drink, and restroom breaks.
Click here for additionaldetails from the court’s opinion
click to get to the full Appellate Court Decision
11/08/2017||Massachusetts Supreme Court confirms that minimization/maximization techniques are acceptable |
In the case of Commonwealth v. Cartwright (Novemebr 2017) the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stated that “ …. we have not acted to prevent police investigators from suggesting to a suspect being interviewed that the investigators are convinced, based on evidence, of the defendant’s guilt…. Nor have we concluded that an interviewing officer's efforts to minimize a suspect's moral culpability, by, for example, suggesting theories of accident or provocation, are inappropriate, or sought to preclude suggestions by the interviewers “broadly that it would be better for a suspect to tell the truth, [and] ... that the person's cooperation would be brought to the attention of [those] involved.”|
Click here for additional details
11/05/2017||Why the Reid Technique® Method Continues to be the Most Effective Means Available to Learn the Truth|
One of the fundamental precepts of the Reid Technique is to use sound reasoning, understanding and empathy to motivate subjects to tell the truth. John Reid started using this approach over 70 years ago and it is as effective today as it was then.
John Reid was a visionary who was ahead of his time. He demonstrated the effectiveness of treating people, even those who have committed heinous crimes, with decency and respect. John Reid tried to see the good in all people and tried to understand why they would commit their crimes. John had the patience and insight to understand the pre-existing thought process of others and he was able to use this insight to make an emotional connection with a subject and gain a level of trust and understanding that made it possible for him to engage in the art of persuasion to motivate even the most hardened criminal to tell the truth.
John developed a systematic approach that would protect the innocent, identify the guilty and motivate the guilty to want to tell the truth. He did this without the use of threats or promises of leniency. He did it by tapping into pre-existing rationalizations that originated in the mind of the suspect. John’s understanding of human behavior allowed him to empathize with those who made bad decisions and committed a variety of crimes.
Today there are critics who have a very shallow understanding of the psychology of the Reid Technique and create a false narrative by suggesting that the inappropriate tactics used by investigators over the years are part of the Reid method….nothing could be further from the truth, as illustrated by our core principles:
- Always conduct interviews and interrogations in accordance with the guidelines established by the courts
- Do not make any promises of leniency
- Do not threaten the subject with any physical harm or inevitable consequences
- Do not deny the subject any of their rights
- Do not deny the subject the opportunity to satisfy their physical needs
- Always treat the subject with dignity and respect
- Do not conduct excessively long interrogations
- Exercise caution when interrogating juveniles, suspects with a lower intelligence or suspects with mental impairments
For over seventy years through our training programs John E. Reid and Associates has been providing investigators with the techniques and skills necessary to conduct effective investigative interviews and interrogations.
We have listed a number of facts regarding the Reid Technique® method for your review:
Click here to continue
11/03/2017||Legal Updates Fall 2017 |
The Legal Updates Fall 2017 column contains cases which address the following issues:
- Federal Appeals Court upholds confession of “Making of a Murderer” subject Brendan Dassey
- Massachusetts Supreme Court confirms that minimization/maximization techniques are appropriate
- The value of recording interrogations – demonstrating a knowing waiver of rights
- The value of recoding interrogations – demonstrating a violation of rights
- The value of recording interrogations in determining custody
- Value of recording interrogations in examining the claim of intoxication
- Value of recording to assess understanding and waiver of rights
- Value of recording interrogations to determine if the suspect’s will was overborne by promises of leniency
- Court rules that the use of the Reid Technique did not violate the defendant's due process rights
- Court finds juvenile confession involuntary: noting that as in the Elias case, the investigators did not appropriately change their approach for a juvenile interrogation
- Court rejects the testimony of Dr. Brian Cutler on false confession issues
Click here for updates
11/01/2017||The November - December Investigator Tip: FACTUAL ANALYSIS|
Factual analysis can be defined as estimating the probability of a suspect's guilt or innocence based on investigative findings. Each investigator uses factual analysis to narrow the scope of suspects - to eliminate innocent suspects and to focus the investigation around a particular suspect most likely to be guilty.
As an introduction, factual analysis is divided into five component parts: Opportunity/Access, Attitude, Motivation, Biographical Information, and Evidence.
Click here to access the complete Tip
Click Here to view earlier "What's New"