Playing Five Card Poker with Three Cards
If the police want to meet with you to talk about your involvement in a crime, you should do two things: 1) refuse to meet with them; and 2) call us immediately.
There are dozens of reasons why you should not agree to talk to them, but one of the most important is this—the US Supreme Court allows the police to lie to people. When you talk to the police, the deck is stacked against you, they know more AND they can lie to you about what they do and do not know. Most people that have no experience in the criminal justice system are surprised to learn that police are allowed to lie to obtain a confession . The reality is police interrogation methods, specifically the “Reid Technique,” revolve around the ability to lie to suspects and create false impressions. Not all lies are allowed, but the scope and scale of the deception that police may engage in usually shocks people when they first hear that the law allows the police to lie.
The US Supreme Court has consider the use of lies in interrogations many times and consistent endorses such lying. Police can lie claiming that: a codefendant confessed (Fraizer v. Cupp), they found the defendant’s fignerprints at the scene (Oregon v. Mathieson), and they have an eyewitness to the suspect’s involvement (Michigan v. Mosley). Since these cases, the lies used in interrogations have proliferated. They have become so common that some judges in New Hampshire actually tell jurors in their jury instructions that police are permitted to lie during interrogations.
Furthermore challenging deceptive interrogations is difficult. The legal standard is more nebulous than proving a violation of a person’s Miranda rights. The defendant must show that the lie rendered the statement involuntary, a very high bar to cross. Only the most egregious of lies are prohibited. Here are a few such lies: promises of non-prosecution (United States v. Pelton), lies about the applicability of the death penalty (“confess or…they will give you the needle…”) (People v. Djurdjulov), and lies that a spouse or child would be arrested without a confession (People v. Thomas). But even these hard and fast rules are muddled. The distinction, for example, between permissible “promises of leniency” and impermissible “promises of non-prosecution” remains unclear.
Finally, there is this point—the police have a stake in the outcome of criminal cases where their behavior during the investigation is under scrutiny. When the police violate someone’s constitutional rights, under 42 USC 1983, they can be held liable for damages. If, however, that violation occurred in response to a crime, a doctrine, qualified immunity, all but bars suit. As a result, police lies in interrogations can not only give rise to false confessions and wrongful convictions, but they can be used to shield police from civil liability.
The effects of coercive interrogation techniques are profound. False confessions are far and away the most common form of inculpatory evidence in cases where the defendant was later cleared by DNA. In fact, false confessions occurred twice as often as the next most common form of flawed evidence (poor eyewitness identification—62% to 31%).
These data prove what experienced defense lawyers have known for years—there is no point in the criminal process where the stakes are higher than in the interrogation room, including trial. Confessions remain the “the Queen of evidence” and are the staple of modern police work. Why pound the pavement looking for witnesses or do complex forensic analysis when a confession is both easier to obtain and more powerful in securing a guilty finding?
Police lying to obtain confessions is not only a widespread phenomenon, it is endorsed by every court in the country. For this reason, among others, you should never go into an interrogation alone. Your odds of success are virtually nil. If the police want to talk to you, call us. We can help.
Other Resources
Innocence Project Statistics on False Confessions
ACLU Summary of Rights Wallet Sheet