DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV: THE FBI, INTERROGATIONS AND A CRASH COURSE IN COERCED CONFESSIONS
"Do not talk to the FBI even if you have nothing to hide"
"When the FBI interviews you, it is their word against yours. Why? Because they in most cases will not record the interview/interrogation, because this way they can write a summary and claim that in the summary is the evidence about what you said to them in the interview and show this as evidence in court. A jury will more likely believe an FBI agent's summary about what you said than to trust your own testimony. They will twist the truth and will lie. This is what they are trained to do. Call me first."
Michael J Macabe, San Diego defence lawyer 07/02/2011
Unfortunately the above advice is not limited to just one defense attorney. The vast majority advise the same.
Michael J Macabe, San Diego defence lawyer 07/02/2011
Unfortunately the above advice is not limited to just one defense attorney. The vast majority advise the same.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eventually captured, he was found to have suffered: Sixteen separate gunshot and serious puncture-type wounds, including bullet/puncture wounds to both legs, back, collar bone, face, neck, hand and both arms. He also suffered numerous soft tissue injuries and burns. He was immediately hospitalised and placed onto a 'critical' list with many not expecting him to survive. However, after just three days, only a marginal improvement in his condition, and whilst under the influence of the strong opioid painkiller Dilaudid, Tsarnaev was questioned about his alleged role in the marathon bombings.
This interrogation reportedly led to a confession.
Tsarnaev was questioned by the Department of Justice High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) over a period of two days and he was not mirandarized due to a clause that notes under a "public safety exception" this is not required. A senior congressional aide noted at the time that Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer to be present, but that his request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.
A recent court document released by Tsarnaev's defense team also made reference to this shocking denial of his rights and has reignited the legal and moral debate over just how valid the alleged confession is, and more importantly, how it was even obtained in the first place.
For 16 hours, Tsarnaev answered FBI questions, falling silent only when a magistrate judge (Marianne B. Bowler) and a representative of the U.S. attorney's office arrived at his hospital bed. He was finally read his Miranda warning and informed nearly a day late that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he did say, could be used against him in a court of law. Bowler was severely criticized for the move by senior members of the House Intelligence Committee, who deemed the interrogation had ended 'too early'.
When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was eventually captured, he was found to have suffered: Sixteen separate gunshot and serious puncture-type wounds, including bullet/puncture wounds to both legs, back, collar bone, face, neck, hand and both arms. He also suffered numerous soft tissue injuries and burns. He was immediately hospitalised and placed onto a 'critical' list with many not expecting him to survive. However, after just three days, only a marginal improvement in his condition, and whilst under the influence of the strong opioid painkiller Dilaudid, Tsarnaev was questioned about his alleged role in the marathon bombings.
This interrogation reportedly led to a confession.
Tsarnaev was questioned by the Department of Justice High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) over a period of two days and he was not mirandarized due to a clause that notes under a "public safety exception" this is not required. A senior congressional aide noted at the time that Tsarnaev had repeatedly asked for a lawyer to be present, but that his request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.
A recent court document released by Tsarnaev's defense team also made reference to this shocking denial of his rights and has reignited the legal and moral debate over just how valid the alleged confession is, and more importantly, how it was even obtained in the first place.
For 16 hours, Tsarnaev answered FBI questions, falling silent only when a magistrate judge (Marianne B. Bowler) and a representative of the U.S. attorney's office arrived at his hospital bed. He was finally read his Miranda warning and informed nearly a day late that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he did say, could be used against him in a court of law. Bowler was severely criticized for the move by senior members of the House Intelligence Committee, who deemed the interrogation had ended 'too early'.
No recordings of his interrogation or confession were ever made, raising serious doubts over its eventual admissibility in a court of law.
What follows is an examination of FBI protocol concerning the recording of interviews, interrogation techniques, and case studies all placed in the context of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's 16 hours under questioning.
And it makes for extremely alarming reading.
The Recording of Interrogations, Confessions and '302 Reports'
The recently released court document made reference to authorities' repeated refusal to turn over '302 reports' to Tsarnaev's defence team.
Instead of electronically recording its interviews and interrogations, the FBI’s policy is to rely solely on agents' '302 reports,' which are written up after the interrogation is over to reflect the supposed substance of the exchange that took place. Therefore, the 302 report becomes the sole arbiter of what was said by all parties during the interrogation.
Recordings are almost never made because alarmingly, it is against formal written FBI policy.
We obtained a leaked classified memo (below) which lists four separate justifications for the FBI's unfathomable non-recording policy. All four defy belief.
And it makes for extremely alarming reading.
The Recording of Interrogations, Confessions and '302 Reports'
The recently released court document made reference to authorities' repeated refusal to turn over '302 reports' to Tsarnaev's defence team.
Instead of electronically recording its interviews and interrogations, the FBI’s policy is to rely solely on agents' '302 reports,' which are written up after the interrogation is over to reflect the supposed substance of the exchange that took place. Therefore, the 302 report becomes the sole arbiter of what was said by all parties during the interrogation.
Recordings are almost never made because alarmingly, it is against formal written FBI policy.
We obtained a leaked classified memo (below) which lists four separate justifications for the FBI's unfathomable non-recording policy. All four defy belief.
(Click here to view full document)
1
...'the presence of recording equipment may interfere with and undermine the successful rapport-building interviewing technique which the FBI practices'
1
...'the presence of recording equipment may interfere with and undermine the successful rapport-building interviewing technique which the FBI practices'
A study was conducted by Thomas Sullivan of the American Criminal Law Review into the 800 U.S. law enforcement departments (state and federal) that record interviews. None have ever expressed regret nor made any attempt to return to non-recorded interviews. The study found the increased accuracy of recorded interviews to be beneficial, convenient, with no evidence of that ineffable phenomenon that is 'loss of rapport'. Why on earth should FBI interviews be any different?
2
...'FBI agents have successfully testified to custodial defendants’ statements for generations with only occasional, and rarely successful, challenges'
...'FBI agents have successfully testified to custodial defendants’ statements for generations with only occasional, and rarely successful, challenges'
This is totally irrelevant. It makes reference to the in-court success of the government’s use of non-recorded statements, and not to the actual fairness or accuracy of how those statements were actually obtained. Neither does it make any reference as to why FBI statements are rarely challenged.
Section 1001 or the 'federal false statements law' indicates that it is a felony offence punishable by a considerable amount of time in prison to make a false statement to a federal agent. Any defendant challenging the testimony provided in an FBI '302
report,' opens himself up to felony conviction: he is either lying to the Grand Jury now, or lied at the time of his initial interview.
When the FBI suspect that a defendant may testify to a Grand Jury or trial information that is inconsistent with their own report, the prosecutor will almost always show him and his attorney the '302 report'.
Section 1001 or the 'federal false statements law' indicates that it is a felony offence punishable by a considerable amount of time in prison to make a false statement to a federal agent. Any defendant challenging the testimony provided in an FBI '302
report,' opens himself up to felony conviction: he is either lying to the Grand Jury now, or lied at the time of his initial interview.
When the FBI suspect that a defendant may testify to a Grand Jury or trial information that is inconsistent with their own report, the prosecutor will almost always show him and his attorney the '302 report'.
It becomes abundantly clear to the defendant that he either must stick to the 302 version, or else risk a false statement or perjury charge when he testifies differently under oath.
3
...A requirement to record all custodial interviews throughout the agency would not only involve massive logistic and transcription support but would also create unnecessary obstacles to the admissibility of lawfully obtained statements, which through inadvertence or circumstances beyond control of the interviewing agents, could not be recorded'
3
...A requirement to record all custodial interviews throughout the agency would not only involve massive logistic and transcription support but would also create unnecessary obstacles to the admissibility of lawfully obtained statements, which through inadvertence or circumstances beyond control of the interviewing agents, could not be recorded'
This is truly shocking. In the year 2013 electronic recording equipment is ubiquitous. It is everywhere, available in a multitude of platforms and formats so there really is no excuse. It is now far easier and safer to keep track of information in digital format than it is on a notepad, piece of paper, or in the form of a '302 report'.
The premise that a 'recording malfunction' may result in interviews being inadmissible to any court, makes no sense whatsoever: how do other branches of law enforcement manage?
If a recorder is broken, or a recording cannot be made in good faith or for practical reasons (any of which are very hard to envision), then the FBI can easily make note of that...' - through no fault of the FBI no recording was possible that day due to x, y and z...
The premise that a 'recording malfunction' may result in interviews being inadmissible to any court, makes no sense whatsoever: how do other branches of law enforcement manage?
If a recorder is broken, or a recording cannot be made in good faith or for practical reasons (any of which are very hard to envision), then the FBI can easily make note of that...' - through no fault of the FBI no recording was possible that day due to x, y and z...
...and as the FBI readily concedes, juries have long trusted individual agent testimony over anything else...
4
...'As all experienced investigators and prosecutors know, perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants. Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit'
4
...'As all experienced investigators and prosecutors know, perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants. Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit'
If the third justification for not recording interrogations was shocking, the fourth justification is absolutely terrifying. It would appear that for whatever reason, the FBI simply do not trust jurors to make a fair and balanced decision. Why?
FBI interrogations which lead to confessions might, in the eyes of a reasonable juror, be perceived as coercive or misleading. What the FBI omits is that human experience demonstrate that coercive or misleading interrogations have a tendency in some situations to produce false rather than true statements.
Therefore, rather than expose themselves to such juror skepticism in response to a recorded interrogation, the FBI feels that a jury will more likely be led to the FBI’s version of the truth by reading an FBI '302 report', rather than by listening to the genuine interview.
Frighteningly, it is clear that the FBI does not have enough confidence in its own interrogation methods to trust an impartial lay person listening to the actual words coming out of a defendant's own mouth to make the correct decision. The FBI prefer, instead, to shroud their actions in a veil of bureaucratic and highly subjective '302 reports' all written up after the questioning that took place.
FBI interrogations which lead to confessions might, in the eyes of a reasonable juror, be perceived as coercive or misleading. What the FBI omits is that human experience demonstrate that coercive or misleading interrogations have a tendency in some situations to produce false rather than true statements.
Therefore, rather than expose themselves to such juror skepticism in response to a recorded interrogation, the FBI feels that a jury will more likely be led to the FBI’s version of the truth by reading an FBI '302 report', rather than by listening to the genuine interview.
Frighteningly, it is clear that the FBI does not have enough confidence in its own interrogation methods to trust an impartial lay person listening to the actual words coming out of a defendant's own mouth to make the correct decision. The FBI prefer, instead, to shroud their actions in a veil of bureaucratic and highly subjective '302 reports' all written up after the questioning that took place.
What are they hiding?
High Value Interrogation Group (HIG)
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was subjected to 16 hours of questioning by the Department of Justice High Value Interrogation Team before he was finally read his rights and his request for a lawyer was granted.
The multi-agency team consists of professionals from the CIA, FBI, Department of State and Department of Defense and was initially established in 2009 to question terror suspects who had been captured overseas only. Their remit was expanded in 2010 when it was announced that the group would begin interrogating suspects in the U.S. as well.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was subjected to 16 hours of questioning by the Department of Justice High Value Interrogation Team before he was finally read his rights and his request for a lawyer was granted.
The multi-agency team consists of professionals from the CIA, FBI, Department of State and Department of Defense and was initially established in 2009 to question terror suspects who had been captured overseas only. Their remit was expanded in 2010 when it was announced that the group would begin interrogating suspects in the U.S. as well.
The HIG's rules on conducting interrogations and obtaining confessions differ very much from what would normally be considered standard practice. They are not bound by the usual rules strictly adhered to whilst interviewing suspects and instead follow the interrogation guidelines contained within the U.S. Army's Field Manual. This manual permits that any defendant undergoing an interrogation may be subjected to forms of 'coercive questioning' .
Coercive questioning covers a very broad base of techniques none of which bear any resemblance to the FBI's well-publicised techniques such as 'rapport building', which is employed to elicit information from a suspect in professional and non-threatening manner.
Below is a table demonstrating the legally permissible techniques HIGs may employ during their interrogation of a suspect and it offers some truly sickening insight.
Unbelievably, the table employs the exact wording and methods outlined in the now infamous publication by Albert Biderman 'The Manipulation of Human Behavior' specifically in reference to his heavily criticized 'Chart of Coercion' often referred to as
the 'torturers table'.
Below is a table demonstrating the legally permissible techniques HIGs may employ during their interrogation of a suspect and it offers some truly sickening insight.
Unbelievably, the table employs the exact wording and methods outlined in the now infamous publication by Albert Biderman 'The Manipulation of Human Behavior' specifically in reference to his heavily criticized 'Chart of Coercion' often referred to as
the 'torturers table'.
No one is suggesting that Tsarnaev was subjected to many of the physical methods above whilst undergoing bedside
questioning three days after his own arrest. However, the disturbing fact remains that authorities state he duly confessed: yet
conversely at his arraignment Tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces. When faced with possible lethal injection it is clear that challenging the information contained in FBI '302 reports' is a risk worth taking, even if it results in a lengthy
jail term under the Section 1001 'federal false statements law'.
Tsarnaev's confession was undoubtedly obtained under duress due to his poor physical and mental state at the time of questioning and as such is highly unlikely to be admissible to the court at any future trial.
Yet the very fact that he was still subjected to interrogation for such a lengthy period of time, his repeated requests for legal representation were denied and his total silence from the moment he was finally made aware of his rights, strongly suggests his confession was obtained by some form of 'coercive questioning'
And if the history of this disgusting practice is anything to go by he is not the only one.
Another high profile confession obtained under coercion.
Although not obtained under HIG's questioning specifically, history demonstrates that the FBI have an abhorrent record when it comes to obtaining confessions from innocent people under coercion. None more so when the person concerned is deemed to be a 'terrorist'.
Abdallah Higazy was an Egyptian national residing in the U.S. who was arrested in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
Higazy had been staying at the Millennium Hilton hotel in New York on September 11, 2001. Members of hotel security claimed to have discovered an aviation radio in Higazy's safe. He was arrested and questioned by the FBI who believed he may have somehow been communicating with or aiding the 9/11 hijacker pilots. Higazy denied he owned the radio.
Another high profile confession obtained under coercion.
Although not obtained under HIG's questioning specifically, history demonstrates that the FBI have an abhorrent record when it comes to obtaining confessions from innocent people under coercion. None more so when the person concerned is deemed to be a 'terrorist'.
Abdallah Higazy was an Egyptian national residing in the U.S. who was arrested in the wake of the September 11th attacks.
Higazy had been staying at the Millennium Hilton hotel in New York on September 11, 2001. Members of hotel security claimed to have discovered an aviation radio in Higazy's safe. He was arrested and questioned by the FBI who believed he may have somehow been communicating with or aiding the 9/11 hijacker pilots. Higazy denied he owned the radio.
Under interrogation Higazy was subjected to repeated threats of violence and told by the FBI that his family members in the USA would also be subject to 'FBI scrutiny' if he did not confess. He was informed his parents back in Egypt would be arrested by Egyptian security forces, face torture and would likely die in police custody.
He was subjected to mental torture and frightened to such an extent he ended up confessing to a crime he did not commit
Higazy spent weeks in jail facing charges relating to 'giving false statements to federal officers' and over his alleged connection to the 9/11 terror plot. Upon conviction he would have spent a considerable amount of time in US custody. His torment only came to an end when an airline pilot reported to authorities that his radio had gone missing from the safe at the hotel.
Higazy was a totally innocent man and his only 'crime' was being a Muslim in the wrong place at the wrong time
When asked why he confessed Higazy stated the following:
'I was very frightened. I knew that I couldn’t prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger.'
The coerced confession of Higazy was not an isolated case. Authorities have a long and shameful record of obtaining false confessions from US citizens and intimidating suspects with coercion. For further examples (unfortunately there are many more) please see:
__________________
Are there any parallels with the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Until very recently many would have argued no. Yet as more disturbing facts about the case are revealed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for many in the criminal justice community to concede that there is no link.
Whilst it is blatantly obvious that the confession itself will never be admissible to any jury, the way it was obtained in the first place is far more worrying.
Many people believe they would never confess to a crime they did not commit. But consider this: over a quarter of DNA exoneration cases in the last 15 years have involved incidences where the defendants concerned made incriminating statements or allegedly confessed.
Scientific studies have also shown that a variety of factors can contribute to an individual making a 'false confession' which include:
Are there any parallels with the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?
Until very recently many would have argued no. Yet as more disturbing facts about the case are revealed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for many in the criminal justice community to concede that there is no link.
- Both men were suspected of involvement in a high-profile act of terrorism and at the time of questioning were viewed as pariahs by general society. Evidence of their alleged 'guilt' had been overtly publicized prior to establishing their true complicity, if any.
- Both were Muslim - a fact that should be unimportant but sadly rarely is.
- Both were subjected to lengthy interrogations, which in the case of Tsarnasev was far worse due to his physical and mental health at the time of questioning.
- Both had family members in the US which could be used as possible 'leverage' ( and in the case of Higazy most definitely were). This is legally permissible.
- Both had parents living abroad in countries where security forces rarely follow the rule of law and torture is known to occur. Higazy was threatened that his parents would be tortured and killed if he did not provide the information required and there is nothing to suggest Tsarnaev himself was not subjected to the same threat. The HIG's interrogation rules legally permit this as a formal method of interrogation.
- Authorities stated that both were inspired by jihadi ideology. Tellingly, neither confessed immediately which is completely at odds with jihadi rhetoric
Whilst it is blatantly obvious that the confession itself will never be admissible to any jury, the way it was obtained in the first place is far more worrying.
Many people believe they would never confess to a crime they did not commit. But consider this: over a quarter of DNA exoneration cases in the last 15 years have involved incidences where the defendants concerned made incriminating statements or allegedly confessed.
Scientific studies have also shown that a variety of factors can contribute to an individual making a 'false confession' which include:
•duress
•coercion
•intoxication
•diminished
capacity
•mental impairment
•ignorance of the law
•fear of violence
•the actual infliction of
harm
•the threat of a harsh sentence
•Misunderstanding the situation
•coercion
•intoxication
•diminished
capacity
•mental impairment
•ignorance of the law
•fear of violence
•the actual infliction of
harm
•the threat of a harsh sentence
•Misunderstanding the situation
Almost every one of these contributing factors likely applied to Tsarnaev whilst he was under interrogation
The implications of the Tsarnaev case are far-reaching and affect us all. The disquiet within the criminal justice system continues to move forward at an increasingly rapid pace, yet one must also consider the effects on wider society as a whole.
Interrogation of a suspect under the circumstances faced by Tsarnaev has no place in modern western society, but even if you are someone who has decided that you are unconcerned (or will seek to support) the violation of rights as long as they are applied to certain individuals or groups who you believe deserve it, these infringements always expand well beyond their initial application.
If you applaud when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's right to legal representation is refused, then you are enabling the institutionalization of that encroachment, and thus ensuring that you have no legal basis or recourse to object when that very right is denied to others whom you may find more sympathetic (including yourself).
Interrogation of a suspect under the circumstances faced by Tsarnaev has no place in modern western society, but even if you are someone who has decided that you are unconcerned (or will seek to support) the violation of rights as long as they are applied to certain individuals or groups who you believe deserve it, these infringements always expand well beyond their initial application.
If you applaud when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's right to legal representation is refused, then you are enabling the institutionalization of that encroachment, and thus ensuring that you have no legal basis or recourse to object when that very right is denied to others whom you may find more sympathetic (including yourself).
The Scene At Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Hospital Room
"I don't want to say it's overkill in this case, but the bureau wants to bring out their shiny new toy'" (HIGs)
"I don't want to say it's overkill in this case, but the bureau wants to bring out their shiny new toy'" (HIGs)
"If he's a meek kind of guy, and you send in a 6ft-tall, football-player-type interrogator, screaming, 'A year from now you're going to have a needle in your arm, and you're going to be dead', he might just melt and tell you everything."
"Spike" Bowman former general counsel for the FBI and 'anonymous source' 04/24/2013
"Spike" Bowman former general counsel for the FBI and 'anonymous source' 04/24/2013
The obvious problem is will that 'everything' be a genuine statement of the facts?
___________________________________________________________________
References:
Biderman A (1961) 'The Manipulation of Human Behaviour' Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
Kessler R (1993) 'The FBI:inside the World's Most Powerful Law Enforcement Agency' Pocket Books Publications
Eggen, D (10/25/2007) 'Second court ruling redacts information aboutinterrogation' The Washington Post.
Bovard J (10/26/2013 'The FBI’s Right to Threaten Torture' Future of Freedom Foundation
Ojeda A (2008) 'What is Psychological Torture?' cited in 'The Trauma of Psychological Torture': Westport, Praeger
Sullivan T (2008) 'Recording federal custodial interviews' American Criminal Law Review: Vol 45 Issue 4.
Kornblut A (07/24/2009) 'Obama approves new team to question key terror suspects' The Washington Post.
Us Army Field Manual cited in: Kaye J (01/06/2010) 'How the U.S. Army's Field Manual Codified Torture -- and Still Does' Alernet.
Macabe M (07/02/2011) 'Do not talk to the FBI even if you have nothing to hide' San Diego Criminal Defense Law Practice: CA
92101-1609
Weiner T (2012) 'Enemies. A History of the FBI' Random House.
McKelvey T (04/24/2013) 'How to interrogate a suspected terrorist' BBC News Service
Greenwald G (04/24/2014) 'There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right' The Guardian Newspaper
Serrano R, Dilanian K, Bennet B, (04/26/2013) 'Miranda reading silences Boston suspect' Los Angeles Times : CA
Court Document (10/07/2013) 'Motion to Compel Discovery' State V Tsarnaev
Annotation 9 - Fifth Amendment Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self- Incrimination: Find Law
Ball R 'Coerced False Confessions During Police Interrogations - Preventative Strategies' Crime Library: Criminal Minds and Methods Understand the Causes: 'False Confessions': The Innocence Project
___________________________________________________________________
References:
Biderman A (1961) 'The Manipulation of Human Behaviour' Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
Kessler R (1993) 'The FBI:inside the World's Most Powerful Law Enforcement Agency' Pocket Books Publications
Eggen, D (10/25/2007) 'Second court ruling redacts information aboutinterrogation' The Washington Post.
Bovard J (10/26/2013 'The FBI’s Right to Threaten Torture' Future of Freedom Foundation
Ojeda A (2008) 'What is Psychological Torture?' cited in 'The Trauma of Psychological Torture': Westport, Praeger
Sullivan T (2008) 'Recording federal custodial interviews' American Criminal Law Review: Vol 45 Issue 4.
Kornblut A (07/24/2009) 'Obama approves new team to question key terror suspects' The Washington Post.
Us Army Field Manual cited in: Kaye J (01/06/2010) 'How the U.S. Army's Field Manual Codified Torture -- and Still Does' Alernet.
Macabe M (07/02/2011) 'Do not talk to the FBI even if you have nothing to hide' San Diego Criminal Defense Law Practice: CA
92101-1609
Weiner T (2012) 'Enemies. A History of the FBI' Random House.
McKelvey T (04/24/2013) 'How to interrogate a suspected terrorist' BBC News Service
Greenwald G (04/24/2014) 'There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right' The Guardian Newspaper
Serrano R, Dilanian K, Bennet B, (04/26/2013) 'Miranda reading silences Boston suspect' Los Angeles Times : CA
Court Document (10/07/2013) 'Motion to Compel Discovery' State V Tsarnaev
Annotation 9 - Fifth Amendment Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self- Incrimination: Find Law
Ball R 'Coerced False Confessions During Police Interrogations - Preventative Strategies' Crime Library: Criminal Minds and Methods Understand the Causes: 'False Confessions': The Innocence Project
Recommend this
VISIT OUR MAIN ARTICLES AND FEATURED STORIES INDEX HERE
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments and discussion on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
Want more? For NIPS, quick takes, and blog posts by the main contributors to this site visit here
________________________________________________
We actively encourage comments and discussion on this site! Please remember to keep it relevant and be respectful at all times.
