Later in 1997, Graves was granted another post-conviction hearing. degree witness declared that the testimony concerning a knife at Graves’ trial was dishonest. At the trial, a prosecution witness same tests showed that a knife that was identical joined once owned by Graves may would like created the injuries inflicted on the victims. Dr. Harrell Gill-King, director of the Laboratory of rhetorical branch of knowledge and Human Identification, testified that the prosecution conclusions concerning the knife were unreliable.
Adnan was found guilty for the murder of Hae Min Lee but never once confessed or confirmed his involvement. It was Adnan’s friend Jay who connected the dots throughout the investigation by providing the police with important details of Hae’s murder. If police had conducted a Guilty Knowledge test with Adnan during his interrogation, the police would have had the opportunity to ask him those specific questions pertaining to the murder and monitor his reactions. With The Guilty Knowledge Test, only Adnan would know the answers to important questions such as the whereabouts of Hae’s vehicle and how she was murdered. The Guilty Knowledge test is very effective at identifying innocent participants and has a 98% accuracy rate (Dahl, 2016).
In Seiberts case the technique a certain officer by the name of Hanrahn used to pull information from her on the occurrences that happened, was the technique of questioning her without reading her, her Miranda warnings, for about 30 to 40 minutes, and squeezing her arm all the while repeating how Donald was to die in his sleep. After that, he proceeded in giving her a 20-minute break and allowing her to smoke, which something not most murderers would receive after just confessing to a murder, then he read her Miranda warnings and obtained a signed waiver. Officer Hanrahn recommenced questioning, confronting Seibert with her prewarning statements and getting her to reiterate the facts. Seibert moved to stifle both her prewarning and postwarning
In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives,
This is considered a maximization technique, it is used by officers and interrogators as a scare tactic to scare suspects into confessing or to just make them uncomfortable. In Melissa's case, it worked like a charm. The more she would deny having anything to do with the death of Ben, the more they would jump down her throat, ultimately leading to what I believe was a false confession. There is a high possibility that the inappropriateness of the police interrogation was what led to a false confession from Melissa. After being interrogated for 14 hours straight, there had to be a breaking point.
If the accused refuses to answer questions or waives their right to counsel, the police can only interrogate the accused with the accused's legal counsel present as a result of Minnick v. Mississippi (Hall, 2015).Several variables are to be considered when law enforcement is conducting a custodial interrogation such as the age of the suspect, the intelligence level of the suspect, how familiar are they with the criminal justice system, and the mental and physical capacity of the suspect in terms of the crime they are suspected of committing as well as their voluntariness to waive their rights (Bethel, 2015). These variables are crucial for the prosecution as it details the suspect's characteristics and sometimes their motives for the crime they committed, and sometimes give further details than the officer anticipated, but the burden of proof lies on the prosecution's shoulders to prove the suspect waived their rights (Bethel, 2015). There are some instances where the suspect will "lawyer up" and the evidence is overwhelming, and the prosecution can elaborate the suspect refused to cooperate and refuse to reduce certain charges or offer a lesser charge for the suspect. The same applies to a suspect giving details of other details that are a violation of Miranda and cannot be used against the suspect but can be used in conjunction with other cases that are being investigated
The Reid Technique of Interrogation leads investigators through eight levels of questioning, spanning from Positive Confrontation, Handling Denials, Overcoming Objections and more to an ultimate oral and written confession. In Lamar Monson’s interrogation, it seems like the police really pushed the hardest on Positive Confrontation, insisting relentlessly that Monson was the one that murdered the young girl, and Handling Denials, creating and committing early on to a made up narrative that fit the scene the authorities wanted. In pushing Monson, an innocent man, as much as they had, insisting he was guilty and creating a narrative with Monson’s guilt at the center, the police were able to break him down enough to confess to a crime he did not
Though there were many issues with the interrogation of Michael Crowe regarding the suspected murder of his younger sister Stephanie, there are a few procedures which are indicative of a proper interrogation. The interrogators documented the interrogation; providing evidence of the interrogation practice as well as documenting the confession. The suspect was isolated in a sparsely furnished room without physical barriers between the suspect and interrogators. During the multiple hours-long interrogations Crowe endured, the authorities accused him of murder, verbally attacked his memory, threatened his future, and, eventually, coerced him into fabricating a confession (Nat Geo). The level of interrogation administered to Crowe was nothing short of psychological torture and child abuse (Smith).
The police then determine if the suspect is guilty and continuously interrogate, accuse, and even threaten the suspect for hours until they confess, whether they are guilty or not. On many occasions the people who are coerced into false confessions are have severe mental impairments that prevent them from functioning as a normal person with out the impairments would.
Interrogation induces false confessions to tend to occur in more serious cases like homicides and other high stakes felonies when the police are under pressure to solve the crime and that use more psychologically coercive
A common reason that individuals have confessed to crimes they haven 't committed, is due to being under extreme duress or coerced by investigators determined to get to the bottom of cases. (2) Once an investigator has decided that an individual is guilty, it becomes less about the actual crime and more about this individual molding their idea of what happened to that of the investigators. Investigators will withhold food and water. Sometimes interrogating for hours. (2) As time progresses individuals become more desperate and some individuals will even begin to believe that what investigators are telling them is the truth.
Although, this tactic does not always work, it can cause some problems. Officers are supposed to use the tactic when there is a suspected criminal, but if it turns out there is no criminal it can cause many problems. Officers do not need to persuade the innocent because then the cops are just creating crime witch is the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The main point of this article is that it wants to make the structure and the frame work of the entrapment system clearer and more precise. The article identifies ways to make entrapment more stable and clearer.
Advantage Taken When a person is interrogated, the police do not try to make him comfortable. Their goal is to make him squirm and admit to something, thus leading to a full-blown confession. Episode four of Making a Murderer focused partially on Brendon Dassey. Brendon Dassey simply fell victim to the pressuring of the police.
This essay draws conclusions as to which method the legal system should implement. The showup is a suggestive procedure. A show-up is an identification procedure in which, the police present a single suspect to an eyewitness, then ask the eyewitness whether the suspect is the perpetrator. The showup is suggestive because the witness views the suspect, whilst the suspect are in police custody.
To be a good interrogator it requires more than confidence and creativity although it does help, but interrogators are very well trained in the mental tactics of social impact. An interrogators task is to get someone to confess to a crime, but it is not easy. While it isn’t easy for them, sometimes they will end up with confessions from the innocent testifies because of the expertise in psychological manipulation interrogators have. The interrogation process has been manipulated over the years and they are using unethical approaches to gain information or a confession from suspects. But in the law of confessions, it is required that confessions are not coerced but be voluntary so that it is admitted into evidence.
