1. Interviewing and Testimony
Chapter 10

2. Interview vs Interrogation
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.

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Interviewing Victims and Eyewitnesses
Question style can have a substantial effect on kinds of information produced
Open questions – “what happened?”
Closed questions – “were you scared?”
‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers
Leading questions – “was the car red?”
Misinformation effects

12. Interviewing Vulnerable or Intimidated Victims/Eyewitnesses
Who are they?
Those under 17 years old
Those with learning/physical disabilities
Those with mental disorders/illness
Those suffering from fear or distress

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Problems with the CI Approach
Errors if used inaccurately or by untrained interviewers
Police officers not trained in appropriate interview techniques
Time consuming

19. 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

20. 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

21. Factors relating to the person (witness)
Age
Children & older adults not so good
Race
Same race or across race identification
Expectations
What is most likely given the situation?
Pressure to perform
The helpful witness!

22. 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 descriptions
Confidence-accuracy relationship

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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