Science-Based Interviewing
Written by: Mark Severino (Los Angeles Police Department (Ret.))
At the beginning of an interview, the interviewer may have already formed an opinion about what had happened, who may have observed it, and who may be responsible based on the investigation’s findings. However, it is essential to find out what the subject knows, is willing to talk about, or what the subject’s alibi may be. The interviewer should not direct the subject to only talk about topics the interviewer is interested in. Instead, they should encourage subjects to speak on issues such as their alibi. When an interviewer enters an interview to seek a confession, the interview is conducted specifically to meet that objective. If the subject does not confess to the crime, techniques such as minimization, maximization, bait questions, or introducing false evidence have contributed to false confessions. The author believes there are additional objectives other than a confession that would deem an interview successful.
- The interview revealed additional investigative information
- The interview revealed additional prosecutorial information
- The interview elicited an admission
- The interview exonerated the subject
- The interview identified false statements in the subject’s alibi
Subject’s Alibi: A statement or evidence alleges the subject was elsewhere when the crime occurred.
Exculpatory Evidence: Evidence that, if true, may exonerate the subject from the crime investigated. This may include witness testimony, phone records, receipts, video footage, or evidence collected at a crime scene.
False Exculpatory Statements: When the subject offers a statement pointing to their innocence but is proven false, i.e., a lie. Depending on the legal jurisdictions (e.g., California), false statements may be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The prosecution may instruct the jury on the inference of guilt they may draw from the subjects’ false statements. False statements may be stronger indicators of guilt than a confession, i.e., there is no need to lie unless guilty. Cross-examination by a criminal defense attorney may challenge the interviewer’s credibility to such an extent that a jury may believe the interviewer coerced the confession. However, juries usually believe an interviewer’s testimony when the interviewer can accurately identify the subject’s lies.
The Interview:
During an interview, the subject’s false statements will be highlighted during the evidence disclosure phase (e.g., when the subject’s statements contrast with the evidence disclosed by the interviewer). A science-based interview, i.e., establishing rapport, eliciting a free recall, proper questioning, and tactically introducing evidence using the Strategic Use of Evidence technique (SUE), will amplify truthful and fabricated statements. Before disclosing evidence, the SUE technique suggests obtaining a complete, uninterrupted account. Giving the subject a sense of autonomy, active listening, and appropriate questioning strategies will increase the amount of information reported and lock the subject into their true or false story (e.g., the subject stated he never left his residence the day of the crime). However, the evidence revealed a different story.
Evidence is arranged in the order of disclosure, beginning with vague evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject left his residence) and gradually introducing more precise evidence (e.g., evidence that shows the subject drove his vehicle to the neighborhood where the crime was committed), followed by the most precise evidence (e.g., a security camera captured subject entering the crime scene).
Questions are composed for each item of evidence, beginning with general questions (e.g., tell me in as much detail as possible everything you did on …) and progressing to more specific questions (e.g., did you ever leave your residence?) and gradually even more specific questions (e.g., did you drive to the neighborhood of …?) followed by the disclosure of the piece of evidence (e.g., video footage of subject entering the crime scene). Arranging the evidence in a vague-to-precise manner and disclosing the evidence using a general-to-specific questioning strategy magnifies cues to deception and truthfulness while increasing the amount of information obtained from the subject.
The interviewer has two possible options when confronting subjects on their contradictory statements. The reactive approach is to confront the issue of each contradiction as it becomes apparent. The selective approach only engages the subject on specific contradictions and not others. The author used both the reactive and selective approaches independently or in combination during an interview, and this was dependent on the type of evidence or the interview objectives. When confronting subjects on their contradictory statements, the interviewer asks for an explanation for the contradictions while maintaining a non-judgmental and non-accusatory demeanor. Science-based interviewing and the electronic recording of the interview process would show there was no coercion or fabrication by the interviewer, and the subject’s statements were given freely. The interview process would also show that the subject had multiple opportunities to explain away any contradictions.
Suggestions:
Inconsistencies may be deception cues, but they are also everyday memory phenomena. Therefore, any opinions regarding the veracity of the subject’s story should be withheld until the subject has given their entire account, all evidence has been disclosed, and the subject has had the opportunity to explain any inconsistencies. The interviewer should never be confrontational with a subject who is being deceptive. Instead, the interviewer should encourage the subject to continue to talk, i.e., lie and contrast with the evidence held by the interviewer. The author believes identifying a subject’s false statements is like a bomb that drops down on the subject’s alibi and would make it difficult for a criminal defense team to overcome, unlike a confession. That said, identifying truthful statements is as important or even more critical when the interviewer can exonerate the subject from wrongdoing.
Conclusion:
This report is one example of why the success of an interview should not be based solely on a confession. When the interviewer can demonstrate how s/he methodically elicited the subject’s false statements, it can facilitate prosecution and offer powerful testimony in front of a jury. The author believes the SUE technique is a fundamental concept and is considered one of the most effective lie detection techniques. Identifying deception in the subject’s alibi allows the prosecutor to present the false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The author encourages interviewers to consult their local prosecutors regarding false exculpatory statements. The author also urges interviewers to seek additional information on science-based interviewing, the SUE technique, and other verbal lie-detection methods.
The opinions expressed in this article, which were prepared in Mark Severino’s capacity, are his own and do not reflect the views of the Los Angeles Police Department.
