The Interrogation The Interrogation and False Confession and False Confession

Link: Beyond Link: Beyond Common Knowledge?Common Knowledge?

Presented at:Presented at:The UC Irvine The UC Irvine

Undergraduate Research Undergraduate Research SymposiumSymposium

By:By:Jaclyn ApplebyJaclyn Appleby

May 13, 2006May 13, 2006

Interrogation’s Evolution: Interrogation’s Evolution: Third degree to confidence Third degree to confidence

gamegame

The Advent of Psychological The Advent of Psychological InterrogationInterrogation

Psychological Psychological InterrogationInterrogation Repeatedly accusing the Repeatedly accusing the

suspect of a crimesuspect of a crime Repeatedly attacking the Repeatedly attacking the

suspect’s alibisuspect’s alibi Repeatedly interrupting Repeatedly interrupting

the suspect’s denialsthe suspect’s denials The lie detector testThe lie detector test Exaggerating/lying about Exaggerating/lying about

evidenceevidence Providing moral Providing moral

justifications/face saving justifications/face saving alternativesalternatives

The Myth of Psychological The Myth of Psychological Interrogation:Interrogation:

Innocent people do not Innocent people do not confess…confess… Anecdotal evidence suggests that Anecdotal evidence suggests that

the general public believes that the the general public believes that the use of psychology is not sufficiently use of psychology is not sufficiently coercive to elicit a false confession.coercive to elicit a false confession.

It is highly counter intuitive to It is highly counter intuitive to believe that someone would confess believe that someone would confess to a crime they did not commit to a crime they did not commit outside of the bounds of physical outside of the bounds of physical coercion, as doing so is in such coercion, as doing so is in such obvious violation of self-interest.obvious violation of self-interest.

False Confessions Do False Confessions Do Occur…Occur… Archival analyses identify false Archival analyses identify false

confession casesconfession cases Leo and Ofshe (1998) identified 60Leo and Ofshe (1998) identified 60 Drizin and Leo (2004) identified 125Drizin and Leo (2004) identified 125

Researchers have produced false Researchers have produced false confessions in the laboratoryconfessions in the laboratory Kassin and Kiechel (1996)Kassin and Kiechel (1996) Russano, Meissner, Narchet, and Russano, Meissner, Narchet, and

Kassin (2005) Kassin (2005)

……and they are damning and they are damning evidenceevidence

The mere presence of a confession The mere presence of a confession drastically increases the likelihood of drastically increases the likelihood of conviction (Kassin & Sukel, 1997) .conviction (Kassin & Sukel, 1997) .

Confession evidence returns higher Confession evidence returns higher conviction rates than either eyewitness conviction rates than either eyewitness testimony or character testimony testimony or character testimony (Kassin & Neumann, 1997). (Kassin & Neumann, 1997).

Studies have estimated that a false Studies have estimated that a false confessor faces a 78-85% risk of being confessor faces a 78-85% risk of being wrongfully convicted if the case is not wrongfully convicted if the case is not dismissed prior to trial (Leo & Ofshe, dismissed prior to trial (Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Drizin & Leo, 2004).1998; Drizin & Leo, 2004).

How do we protect the How do we protect the wrongfully accused from wrongfully accused from their false confession?their false confession?

Improved police training and education on the Improved police training and education on the phenomenon of false confessionsphenomenon of false confessions

Mandatory electronic recording of Mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and confessions to provide an interrogations and confessions to provide an objective recordobjective record

Changing the law to require confessions to Changing the law to require confessions to meet a standard of reliability prior to meet a standard of reliability prior to admissionadmission

Expert witness testimony to educate Expert witness testimony to educate judge and jury on the coerciveness judge and jury on the coerciveness of police interrogation and the of police interrogation and the possibility of the elicitation of false possibility of the elicitation of false confessionsconfessions

Expert Witness Expert Witness AdmissibilityAdmissibility The Federal Rules of The Federal Rules of

Evidence provide a Evidence provide a standard for courts to standard for courts to allow “scientific, allow “scientific, technical, or other technical, or other specialized knowledge specialized knowledge [when it] assists the trier [when it] assists the trier of fact to understand of fact to understand evidence or to determine evidence or to determine a fact in issue” (Fed. R. a fact in issue” (Fed. R. Evid. 702). Evid. 702).

In order to assist the trier In order to assist the trier of fact, the knowledge of fact, the knowledge that the expert witness that the expert witness brings to the case must brings to the case must be beyond that of the be beyond that of the average person.average person.

What does the average What does the average person hold as common person hold as common

knowledge?knowledge? We do not know…We do not know… There has never been a published There has never been a published

survey of public perceptions of the survey of public perceptions of the coerciveness of interrogation coerciveness of interrogation techniques and their ability to elicit techniques and their ability to elicit true and false confessions.true and false confessions.

The current study seeks to fill this The current study seeks to fill this empirical gap and determine what the empirical gap and determine what the average person, as a potential juror, average person, as a potential juror, believes in relationship to the believes in relationship to the coerciveness of interrogation and the coerciveness of interrogation and the elicitation of confessions.elicitation of confessions.

Does the general public Does the general public acknowledge the coerciveness of acknowledge the coerciveness of

psychological interrogation?psychological interrogation?

Central QuestionsCentral Questions

Does the general public believe that Does the general public believe that psychological interrogation tactics can psychological interrogation tactics can

elicit false confessions?elicit false confessions?

ParticipantsParticipants Surveys distributed to 268 UCI Surveys distributed to 268 UCI

undergraduates enrolled in an undergraduates enrolled in an introductory criminology classintroductory criminology class Jury eligible populationJury eligible population Proximity to researchersProximity to researchers

DemographicsDemographics GenderGender

AgeAge Mean age 19.78Mean age 19.78

VictimizationVictimization 19.6% had been victim of serious crime19.6% had been victim of serious crime

Death Penalty SupportDeath Penalty Support

36%

64%

malefemale

46%

21%

33% SupportDo Not SupportUnsure

Survey MeasuresSurvey Measures Perceived coerciveness of interrogation Perceived coerciveness of interrogation

techniquestechniques Rate the degree to which you believe that each Rate the degree to which you believe that each

tactic is “coercive” (i.e., removes an individual’s tactic is “coercive” (i.e., removes an individual’s perception of their freedom to make a meaningful perception of their freedom to make a meaningful choice) during a police interrogation; 1= not at all choice) during a police interrogation; 1= not at all coercive, 5= extremely coercivecoercive, 5= extremely coercive

Perceived likelihood of interrogation Perceived likelihood of interrogation techniques to elicit true confessions and false techniques to elicit true confessions and false confessionsconfessions Rate the likelihood that each of the following tactics Rate the likelihood that each of the following tactics

would elicit a true confession from the suspect would elicit a true confession from the suspect during the interrogation; 1= not at all likely, 5= very during the interrogation; 1= not at all likely, 5= very likelylikely

Subtle indicatorsSubtle indicators Importance that police have a confession to solve a Importance that police have a confession to solve a

casecase Estimated time needed to elicit a confessionEstimated time needed to elicit a confession

CoercivenessCoerciveness With the exception of giving a suspect a With the exception of giving a suspect a

lie detector test, each of the techniques lie detector test, each of the techniques was rated as coercive (>3).was rated as coercive (>3).

Lying to the suspect is seen as particularly Lying to the suspect is seen as particularly coercive coercive The lie detector’s coerciveness rating The lie detector’s coerciveness rating

increased by 163% when the clause “and increased by 163% when the clause “and falsely telling them the results show they are falsely telling them the results show they are lying” is added (4.24).lying” is added (4.24).

Each technique utilizing a lie about evidence Each technique utilizing a lie about evidence (surveillance, DNA, fingerprint) received (surveillance, DNA, fingerprint) received coerciveness ratings exceeding 4.0.coerciveness ratings exceeding 4.0.

0

1

2

3

4

5

giving suspect liedetector test

falsely telling themresults show they'relying

CoercivenessCoerciveness Positive Coercion BiasPositive Coercion Bias

Implicit or explicit promises of Implicit or explicit promises of leniency were viewed as less coercive leniency were viewed as less coercive than implicit or explicit threats of than implicit or explicit threats of harm.harm.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Promises ofleniency

Threats of harm

ImplicitExplicit

Likelihood of eliciting Likelihood of eliciting confessionsconfessions With the exception of direct threat of With the exception of direct threat of

physical violence and beating the physical violence and beating the subject, interrogation techniques were subject, interrogation techniques were rated as significantly* more likely to rated as significantly* more likely to elicit true than false confessions.elicit true than false confessions.

The smallest variations in significant The smallest variations in significant likelihoods were seen for implicit likelihoods were seen for implicit (t=3.598) or explicit threats (t=4.578) (t=3.598) or explicit threats (t=4.578) of physical harm.of physical harm.

*Significance p<.001

2

3

4

ImplicitThreats of

Harm

ExplicitThreats of

Harm

True Confessions

FalseConfessions

Likelihood of eliciting Likelihood of eliciting confessionsconfessions Of the remaining techniques, the ones that Of the remaining techniques, the ones that

were rated as most coercive (i.e. lying about were rated as most coercive (i.e. lying about lie detector results/evidence) were rated as lie detector results/evidence) were rated as unlikely to cause a false confession (<3).unlikely to cause a false confession (<3).

Overall, people believe that interrogation Overall, people believe that interrogation techniques, though coercive work to elicit techniques, though coercive work to elicit true confessions and do not elicit false true confessions and do not elicit false confessions with any frequency.confessions with any frequency.

0

1

2

3

4

5

lying about liedetector

falsesurveillenceevidence

false DNAevidence

falsefingerprintevidence

coercivenesslikelihood of true confessionlikelihood of false confession

Subtle IndicatorsSubtle Indicators Rated confessions as Rated confessions as

less important to less important to solving a case than solving a case than both DNA and both DNA and eyewitness eyewitness testimony.testimony. Mock-jurors have Mock-jurors have

demonstrated that demonstrated that confessions lead to confessions lead to convictions more convictions more frequently than frequently than eyewitness testimony.eyewitness testimony.

Subtle IndicatorsSubtle Indicators Mean estimate of time needed to elicit Mean estimate of time needed to elicit

a confession was 7.88 hours, nearly a confession was 7.88 hours, nearly five times the average interrogation five times the average interrogation time as reported by police time as reported by police investigators (Leo et al, forthcoming).investigators (Leo et al, forthcoming). As interrogation duration increases, the As interrogation duration increases, the

likelihood of eliciting a false confession likelihood of eliciting a false confession also increases.also increases.

FALSE FALSE CONFESSIONCONFESSION

SS

SummarySummary While it appears on the face of the issue While it appears on the face of the issue

that the average person has sophisticated that the average person has sophisticated knowledge on the coerciveness of knowledge on the coerciveness of interrogation techniques, they lack interrogation techniques, they lack knowledge about the links between knowledge about the links between interrogation and confession.interrogation and confession.

Though preliminary, this is the first Though preliminary, this is the first demonstration that the average person demonstration that the average person does not understand the link between does not understand the link between coercive interrogation and false coercive interrogation and false confessions, thus the belief in the myth of confessions, thus the belief in the myth of psychological interrogation has received psychological interrogation has received preliminary empirical support.preliminary empirical support.

Beyond Common Beyond Common Knowledge?Knowledge?

It appears that people understand It appears that people understand that interrogation is coercive, so an that interrogation is coercive, so an expert witness explaining that expert witness explaining that interrogation techniques are coercive interrogation techniques are coercive would not be necessary to educate would not be necessary to educate the jury.the jury.

An expert talking about how coercive An expert talking about how coercive interrogation tactics can lead to a interrogation tactics can lead to a false confession would be beneficial false confession would be beneficial to a jury and could help to serve as a to a jury and could help to serve as a safeguard for the wrongfully accused.safeguard for the wrongfully accused.

Thank you to:Thank you to: Dr. Richard LeoDr. Richard Leo Dr. Jodi QuasDr. Jodi Quas Dr. Valerie JennessDr. Valerie Jenness Undergraduate Research Undergraduate Research

Opportunities ProgramOpportunities Program Research participantsResearch participants

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

For further informationFor further informationPlease direct correspondence to:Please direct correspondence to:

Jaclyn N. ApplebyJaclyn N. ApplebyDepartment of Criminology, Law, and Department of Criminology, Law, and

SocietySocietyUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of California, Irvine

jappleby@uci.edujappleby@uci.edu