Advertisement

The Problem of Interrogation-Induced False Confession: Sources of Failure in Prevention and Detection

  • Deborah DavisEmail author
  • Richard A. Leo
Chapter

Abstract

The most basic goal of police interrogation is to elicit a confession that leads to conviction. Sometimes, however, police interrogators elicit false confessions from factually innocent suspects. The psychological process that leads detectives to erroneously obtain false confessions from the innocent involves a series of errors, from misclassification (subjecting an innocent person to an interrogation that presumes their guilt) to psychological coercion (using interrogation techniques that cause the suspect to perceive that he has no meaningful choice to but to confess) to contamination (feeding the suspect nonpublic crime facts that the suspect then incorporates into his confession statement, erroneously making the confession statement appear to be corroborated and thus true). It is usually the combination of these errors that not only lead to false confessions but also to the wrongful conviction of the innocent based on false confessions. In this chapter, we review and analyze the history of police interrogation, noting the historical shift from more physically based to more psychologically based techniques; and the social psychology and practice of police interrogation, noting that it is inherently misleading, can easily become psychologically coercive, and remains a procedure with considerable risk not only to elicit false confessions from the innocent but also to corrupt the search for the truth. We also analyze mistaken cues of deception and guilt, the social psychology of influence principles, the problem of assessing voluntariness, the potential for interrogations to undermine the individual’s capacity for self-regulation, observer biases, context effects, and how available evidence can be selectively evaluated and distorted in cases of false confession leading to erroneous conviction. Finally, we discuss the impact of confession evidence on police, prosecutors, judges, and juries and why, when false, it still creates such a high risk of leading to the wrongful conviction of the innocent.

Keywords

Expert Testimony Mock Juror Innocent Person Police Interrogation Criminal Suspect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Auther, R. O., & Caputo, R. (1959). Interrogation for investigators. New York: Copp.Google Scholar
  2. Berk-Seligson, S. (2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 239–260. doi: 10.1080/10683160903113699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassell, P., & Hayman, B. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of the effects of Miranda. UCLA Law Review, 43, 839–931.Google Scholar
  5. Chojnacki, D. E., Cicchini, M. D., & White, L. T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law Journal, 40, 1–45.Google Scholar
  6. Cialdini, R. A. (2008). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
  8. Connery, D. S. (1977). Guilty until proven innocent. New York: Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  10. Costanzo, M., & Leo, R. A. (2007). Research and expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 69–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Costanzo, M., Shaked-Schroer, N., & Vinson, K. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(2), 231–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling and the postdiction of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2003). Toward an empirical approach to evidentiary ruling. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 661–684.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, D., & Friedman, R. D. (2007). Memory for conversation: The orphan child of witness memory researchers. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Memory for events, Vol. I, pp. 3–52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2012a) Acute suggestibility in police interrogation: Self-regulation failure as a primary mechanism of vulnerability. In A. Ridley, F. Gabbert & D. La Rooy (Eds.), Investigative suggestibility: Research, theory and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2012b). Interrogation through pragmatic implication: Sticking to the letter of the law while violating its intent. In L. Solan & P. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on language and law (pp. 354–366). Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2012c). Interrogation-related regulatory decline: Ego-depletion, self-regulation failure and the decision to confess. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 673–704. doi: 10.1037/a0027367
  18. Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2012d). To walk in their shoes: The problem of missing, misrepresented and misunderstood context in judging criminal confessions. New England Law Review, 46(4), 737–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, D., Leo, R. A., & Follette, W. C. (2010). Selling confession: Setting the stage with the “Sympathetic detective with a time-limited offer”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 441–457. doi: 10.1177/10439862103772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(3), 249–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01138.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drizin, S. A., & Colgan, B. A. (2004). Tales from the juvenile confession front: A guide to how standard police interrogation tactics can produce coerced and false confessions from juvenile suspects. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 127–162). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Drizin, S., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.Google Scholar
  23. Findley, K., & Scott, M. (2006). The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review, 291–398.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interview protocols for improving eyewitness memory. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Memory for events, Vol. I, pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Follette, W. C., Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2007). Mental health status and vulnerability to interrogative influence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(3), 42–49.Google Scholar
  26. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U. S. 731 (1969).Google Scholar
  27. Fulero, S. M. (2010a). Admissibility of expert testimony based on the Grisso and Gudjonsson scales in disputed confession cases. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1/2), 193–214.Google Scholar
  28. Fulero, S. M. (2010b). Tales from the front: Expert testimony on the psychology of interrogations and confessions revisited. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 211–223). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garrett, B. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051–1118.Google Scholar
  30. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 254–275. doi: 10.1080/00207590344000411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Givelber, D. (2000). Punishing protestations of innocence: Denying responsibility and its consequences. American Criminal Law Review, 37, 1363–1408.Google Scholar
  33. Goldacre, B. (2010). Bad science: Quacks, hacks, and big pharma flacks. New York: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  34. Gordon, N. J., & Fleisher, W. L. (2002). Effective interviewing and interrogation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2010). The psychology of false confessions: A review of the current evidence. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 31–47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20(1), 122–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. A. J., & Dailey, E. M. (2008). A survey of people’s attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26(5), 555–584. doi: 10.1002/bsl.826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Inbau, F. E. (1942). Lie detection and criminal interrogation (1st ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  40. Inbau, F. E. (1948). Lie detection and criminal investigation (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  41. Inbau, F. E. (1961). Police interrogation – A practical necessity. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 52(1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. (1953). Lie detection and criminal interrogation (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  43. Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. (1962). Criminal interrogations and confessions. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  44. Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. (1967). Criminal interrogations and confessions (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  45. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogations and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  46. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  47. Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1999). The investigator anthology: A compilation of articles and essays about the Reid technique of interviewing and interrogation. Chicago, IL: John E. Reid & Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Kamisar, Y. (1980). Plice interrogation and confessions: Essays in law and policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52(3), 221–233. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.3.221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kassin, S. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67(6), 431–445. doi: 10.1037/a0028212 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010a). Police-induced confessions, risk factors, and recommendations: Looking ahead. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 49–52. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9217-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010b). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. doi:  10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). 'I’m innocent!’: Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23(5), 499–516. doi: 10.1023/a:1022330011811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 187–203. doi: 10.1023/a:1022599230598 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7(3), 125–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 469–484. doi: 10.1023/a:1024871622490 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the ‘harmless error’ rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 27–46. doi: 10.1023/a:1024814009769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Keedy, E. (1937). The third degree and legal interrogation of suspects. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 85, 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kidd, W. R. (1940). Police interrogation. New York: Police Journal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lassiter, G. D., Ware, L. J., Lindberg, M. J., & Ratcliff, J. J. (2010). Videotaping custodial interrogations: Toward a scientifically based policy. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 143–160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lavine, E. (1930). The third degree: A detailed and appalling expose of police brutality. New York: Garden City.Google Scholar
  65. Lavine, E. (1936). Secrets of the metropolitan police. New York: Garden City.Google Scholar
  66. Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(2), 266–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Leo, R. A. (2004). The third degree and the origins of psychological interrogation in the United States. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 37–85). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  68. Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Leo, R. A., & Davis, D. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: Seven psychological processes. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1–2), 9–56.Google Scholar
  70. Leo, R. A., & Drizin, S. A. (2010). The three errors: Pathways to false confession and wrongful conviction. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 9–30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 381–399. doi: 10.1002/bsl.872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(2), 429–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (2001). The truth about false confessions and advocacy scholarship. Criminal Law Bulletin, 37(4), 293–370.Google Scholar
  74. Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  75. Macdonald, J. M., & Michaud, D. L. (1992). Criminal interrogation. Denver, CO: Apache Press.Google Scholar
  76. Medwed, D. (2004). The zeal deal: Prosecutorial resistance to post-conviction claims of innocence. Boston University Law Review, 84, 125–183.Google Scholar
  77. Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). ‘He’s guilty!’: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 469–480. doi: 10.1023/a:1020278620751 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Miller, G. R., & Boster, F. J. (1977). Three images of the trial: Their implications for psychological research. In B. Sales (Ed.), Psychology in the legal process (pp. 19–38). New York: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
  79. Mulbar, H. (1951). Interrogation. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
  80. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: The McClure Company.Google Scholar
  81. Najdowki, C. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent black suspects are at risk for confessing falsely. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 562–591. doi: 10.1037/a0023741
  82. Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 452–465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nardulli, P., Eisenstein, J., & Fleming, R. (1988). The tenor of justice: Criminal courts and the guilty plea process. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  84. National Research Council of the National Academies. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  85. Ochoa, C. (2005). My life is a broken puzzle. In Lola Vollen & Dave Eggers (Eds.), Surviving justice: America’s wrongfully convicted and exonerated (pp. 13–46). San Francisco: McSweeney’s Books.Google Scholar
  86. O’Hara, C. E. (1956). Fundamentals of criminal investigation. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
  87. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997a). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 16, 189–251.Google Scholar
  88. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997b). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. The Denver University Law Review, 74(4), 979–1122.Google Scholar
  89. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 643–658. doi: 10.1023/a:1005500219657 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rabon, D. (1992). Interviewing and interrogation. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  91. Redlich, A. D. (2010). False confessions, false guilty pleas: Similarities and differences. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 49–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Reid, J. E., & Arther, R. O. (1953). Behavior symptoms of lie-detector subjects. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 44(1), 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481–486.Google Scholar
  94. Scheck, B., Neufield, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  95. Senese, L. (2005). Anatomy of interrogation themes: The reid technique of interviewing and interrogation. Chicago, IL: John E. Reid & Associates.Google Scholar
  96. Smith, D. L. (1986). Zechariah Chafee, Jr.: Defender of liberty and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. State v. Scales, 518 N. W. 2d 587 (Minn. 1994).Google Scholar
  98. State of California v. Cahill, 5 Cal.4th (1993).Google Scholar
  99. Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985).Google Scholar
  100. Sullivan, T. P. (2010). The wisdom of custodial recording. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 127–142). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thomas, G. C. I. (1996). Plain talk about the Miranda empirical debate: A “steady-state” theory of confessions. UCLA Law Review, 43, 933–959.Google Scholar
  102. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  103. Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2010). Lie detection: Pitfalls and opportunities. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 97–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vrij, A., Granhag, P. A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). Empirical test of the behavior analysis interview. Law & Human Behavior, 30(3), 329–345. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Walker, S. (1977). A critical history of police reform: The emergence of professionalism. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
  107. Warden, R. (2003). The role of false confessions in Illinois wrongful murder convictions since 1970: Chicago: Center on Wrongful Convictions.Google Scholar
  108. Watson, C., Weiss, K. J., & Pouncey, C. (2010). False confessions, expert testimony, and admissibility. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(2), 174–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Wells, T., & Leo, R. A. (2008). The wrong guys: Murder, false confessions, and the Norfolk Four. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  110. Wickersham Commission Report (1931). National Commission on Law Observance and Law Enforcement. (1931). Report on lawlessness in law enforcement. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  111. White, W. S. (1998). What is an involuntary confession now? Rutgers Law Review, 50, 2001–2057.Google Scholar
  112. Wrightsman, L. S. (2010). The Supreme Court on Miranda rights and interrogations: The past, the present, and the future. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 161–177). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Yeschke, C. L. (1997). The art of investigative interviewing. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  114. Zulawski, D., & Wicklander, D. (2002). Practical aspects of interview and interrogation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.University of San Francisco School of LawSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations