PERMISSABLE INTERROGATION TACTICS & PROCEDURES:

Trickery & Deceit; The leading case in support of the legality of trickery and deceit in the course of a criminal interrogation is Frazier v. Cupp, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1969. The court upheld a conviction based in part upon a confession obtained by trickery and deceit, in that a murder suspect had been told falsely that a suspected accomplice had confessed. The two qualifications to the rule, however, is that the trickery and deceit must NOT be of such a nature as to “shock the conscience” of the court or community, nor can it be one that is apt to induce a false confession. Examples of these exceptions include posing as a chaplain or a defense attorney in order to gain a confession, as well as making promises that cannot be fulfilled and would induce a false confession. You cannot tell a subject “If you confess, we’ll let you go” or “If you confess, the last 10 people that did so only got probation”. You CAN promise that “I will let the judge and the prosecutor know that you have cooperated and ask them to take that into consideration”. Be aware that, when testifying in court regarding a statement, a common cross-examination questioning tactic by a defense attorney is to pose the question in a manner that makes you believe a “Yes” answer is an admission of fault. A common question posed by a defense attorney: “Isn’t it true that you tricked and lied to my client in order to get him to confess?” is intended to make it sound as if doing so is a bad thing. IT’S NOT; trickery and deceit IS ALLOWED! The correct answer to that question, “Yes I Did” is proper.