Suspect does not have the right to inspect evidence against them on demand. I will advise them this and tell them to have their attorney to file a motion for discovery. But by the time that happens we’ll have so much more to add against them. Maybe even more charges.
A savvy suspect wouldn’t be talking to me in the first place.
Fair to say, but the point stands that the more precise you are with your lies, the easier it is to trip yourself up. You tell me you just got off the phone with the DA who said yadda yadda yadda, that might rock me, but you use a prop and you run the risk that I know what kind of weapon was used, or what watch the victim had. You get all cagey about the DVD and I figure there’s a reason. I would imagine it only takes one or two cases were a prop blew the interview for the dept to say ‘no props’.
Probably not, but an innocent one would be, not knowing that they need to be savvy.
“I have surveillance video of you committing this crime.” Cop lying to a “suspect” in order to try to get them to “confess”.
“Really? Let me see it.” Innocent person trying to figure out what the hell is going on here.
“You have no right to inspect evidence against you. You can have your attorney file for discovery, but by then we will have even more charges against you!”
A savvy suspect is sitting at home counting the fortunes of their crimes while you railroad an innocent person into confessing to them.
As a defense attorney, I don’t think police want to ham up an innocent person. But I do believe that they get tunnel vision and believe very strongly that THIS person here is the guilty one.
And their training teaches them that if you say “We have you on video committing this crime” that a guilty person, knowing their guilt, will confess, but that an innocent person, knowing their innocence will say “The hell you do!” and it will work out.
Human psychology has shown that to be terribly wrong.
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference, especially if the reason “THIS person” is “here” is a bad reason?
Well, to play devil’s advocate, no. The police should have the right to question someone that they suspect and the standard should not be no questions without absolute proof of guilt.
This came about because in the 1930s and before, police would routinely just beat the living shit out of a guy until he confessed. People rightly objected to that, in part because you weren’t getting a reliable confession.
But then it was thought, and still is in some circles, that innocent people have absolutely nothing to fear by police questioning. Just tell the truth and the truth shall sat you free. And I think we have seen in more modern times that isn’t true. Psychological pressure mentally forces innocent people to confess and agree to suggestions.
I think this was in Doonesbury?
“The agency put us through a mock waterboarding to prove that everyone breaks…”
“Does it really work?”
“Yes. After 5 minutes, I spilled the beans about our plans to invade Canada.”
Yes and no - it’s a distinction without a difference to the person who the police believe is guilty. But the police believing that the wrong person is guilty is very different from the police not caring whether they arrest the correct person, just as long as they arrest someone and close the case - which is something the police get accused of.
Not against policy or illegal. Not allowed by state case law. I can’t remember the case and minor precedents are sometimes not so easy to find online. It’s not illegal in that I would not be breaking the law if I did it but it would most likely get the entire interview tossed.
Law & Order Season 21, Episode 1 has a situation where police lie during interrogation, resulting in the killer confessing. Later, the assistant DA is uncomfortable with the ethics involved and decides to not use the confession.
Not happy about Cosgrove’s coercion, Price confided in his mentor Jack McCoy about how to approach this case. McCoy argued that cops are allowed to lie, and Price countered that coercion made confessions less ethical and less reliable. Price chose to prosecute the cast as ethically as he could, which meant tossing out Nicole’s confession.](‘Law & Order’ Season 21, Episode 1 Recap: A Surprising Return – TVLine)
Except, going back to the OP, the Reid Technique assumes the interviewer has the evidence that is talked about. This is about cops lying about evidence so not the same thing OR done incorrectly.
Thanks for the spoiler.
Without spoiling it too much, since it seemed pretty unrealistic - the loose canon cop basically promised the perp the DA would applaud and they’d be able to go home right away with no consequences. (Along with the usual “we’re trying to help you” line.) I can’t see how this would ever be construed as anything except a promise of immunity, which he can’t give.
Then the cop deliberately mentions the not-included confession on the stand, and the judge refuses to allow a mistrial (presumably because the jury might find the defendant not guilty anyway.) Based on the whole thread here, I have trouble imagining this not going to mistrial on appeal.
Plus the prosecutor asks a sympathetic fellow prosecutor on the stand whether the defendant had told her about an intent to commit the crime, and she pled the fifth - which seems to me to be deliberately prejudicial and the inference cannot help but be drawn, but I presume allowed.
Sorry. I’ve reported my post.
So, in this case, where the cops were straight up lying to the guy’s face about the description that they were given, telling him straight up that loss prevention had told them that he was the suspect, was their lying justifiable?
This is one of the more professional “mistaken identity” encounters we’ve seen documented. But still - everyone with a puffy coat who looks at police is a suspect? WTF.
(Obviously I am out of the loop - never heard of a Carhartt coat, let alone know what colours it comes in.)