MIDTERM (LESSON 1) SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION 2 WITH INTERVIEW AND INTERROGATION INTRODUCTION Special crime investigation deals with the study of major crimes based on the application of special investigative technique. The study concentrates more on physical evidence, its collection, handling, identification and preservation in coordination with the crime laboratory. Special crime investigation involves a close relationship between the prober in the field and the crime laboratory technician. They work together as a team, reacting to and extending one another’s theories and findings both working patiently and thoroughly to solve a crime from their investigative discoveries. The present criminal justice system in our country, the court relies more on physical evidence rather than extra-judicial confession. WHAT IS INTERROGATION? Interrogation is a process of questioning by which police obtain evidence. The purpose of an interrogation is to elicit from the suspect or from his or her relatives or associate's information that they may be suppressing in order to protect the suspect from being subjected to criminal prosecution (Galero-Muftuoglu, 2017, p. 187). Interrogation process is largely outside the governance of law except for rules concerning the admissibility at trial of confessions obtained through interrogation and limitations on the power of police to detain the suspected persons against their will. THREE OBJECTIVES OF INTERROGATION Aside from obtaining information detrimental to a suspect’s case, the following are the three objectives of interrogation: 1. Establish the innocence of a suspect by clearing up facts that seem to point to guilt; 2. Obtain from the suspect or relatives and friends of the suspect: A. The names of accomplices; B. The facts and circumstances surrounding the crime; C. Follow-up leads provided unwittingly, or with ulterior motive, such as faking an alibi; D. The location of stolen goods; E. The location of physical evidence, such as documents, a weapon, or a burglar’s tool. 3. Obtain from the suspect alone: A. Admission – it refers to the express or implied statement tending to support the suspect’s involvement in the crime, but insufficient by itself to prove guilt; B. Confession – it pertains to an oral or written statement acknowledging it. WHAT IS AN INTERVIEW? Interview is defined as a structured conversation where one person or “interviewer” seeks to gather information from one another or the “interviewee” as part of any investigation or intelligence operation. The objective is to obtain accurate and reliable information while respecting human rights; eliciting facts is the aim, not confession. In the process of interviewing the suspects there is the added potential goal of obtaining an admission of guilt or a confession. However, this must not be the primary or sole purpose of interview as even a confession must be substantiated by information and evidence. This will reduce the likelihood of a false accusation and will also enable officers to present stronger case against the suspect, should a confession later be retracted. WHAT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW? Investigative Interviewing, is a technique developed by practitioners to respond to the large body of scientific evidence that abusive and coercive techniques elicit unreliable information. It uses building rapport with the interviewee, which prevent abusive practices, and also improves the collection and reliability of information. It is a non-coercive approach using open questions to improve the flow of communication and information (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). GOALS OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 1. Eliciting more accurate and reliable information during interviews. 2. Strengthening the capacity, efficiency, and professionalism of interviews. 3. Eliminating reliance on unlawful, ineffective, and counterproductive coercive questioning techniques. 4. Providing successful, affordable, and accessible methods and practices with minimal resources. 5. Delivering more effective information-gathering operations. 6. Fostering greater public trust in and cooperation with criminal justice institutions. 7. Ensuring that no person is subjected to coercion, torture or other forms of ill treatment. 8. Protecting the physical and mental integrity of all persons who interact with public authorities. REID METHOD Reid Method is also known as The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation, is the interrogation technique widely used by police departments. The Reid Technique involves three components namely: 1. Factual Analysis 2. Behavioral Analysis Interview 3. Interrogation (Nine Steps) FACTUAL ANALYSIS It is an inductive approach where each individual suspect is evaluated with respect to specific observations relating to the crime. It relies not only on crime scene analysis, but also on information learned about each suspect. Its goal is establishing an estimate of a particular suspect’s probable guilt or innocence based on such things as the suspect’s biosocial status like: gender, race, occupation, marital status, etc., opportunity and access to commit the crime, and evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence. It is also intended to identify characteristics about the suspect and the crime which will be helpful during an interrogation of the suspect believed to be guilty such as motive or the suspect’s personality type. BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS INTERVIEW It is a non-accusatory question and answer session, involving both standard investigative questions and structured “behavior provoking” questions to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. The investigator first asks background questions, to establish personal information about the suspect and allow the investigator to evaluate the suspect’s normal verbal and nonverbal behavior. The investigator then asks behavior-provoking questions intended to elicit different verbal and nonverbal responses from truthful and deceptive suspects (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et.al., 2013, p.63). The investigator will also ask some investigative questions during this stage. It provides objective criteria to render an opinion about the suspect’s truthfulness through evaluating responses to the behavior-provoking and investigative questions. INTERROGATION (NINE STEPS) An interrogation only occurs when the investigator is reasonably certain of the suspect’s involvement in the issue under investigation (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et.al., 2013, p.99). This is composed of Nine steps, they are: 1. Direct, Positive Confrontation 2. Theme Development 3. Handling Denials 4. Overcoming Objections 5. Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention 6. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood 7. Presenting an Alternative Question 8. Having the Suspect Relate Details of the Offense 9. Converting an Oral Confession to a Written Confession NINE STEPS 1. Direct, Positive Confrontation. This is where the investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person’s guilt. If the persons guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal. 2. Theme Development. This is where the investigator presents a moral justification(theme) for the offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in a sympathetic manner. 3. Handling Denials. When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage, likely to deny accusations, the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The innocent suspect are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to promptly and unequivocally deny the accusation. 4. Overcoming Objections. When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes objections to support a claim of innocence, phrases such as I would never do that because I love my job are commonly used. The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they where truthful, rather than arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme. 5. Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention. The investigator must procure the suspect’s attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator’s theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect. The investigator should also channel the theme down to the probable alternative components. 6. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood. The investigator needs to intensify the theme presentation and concentrate on the central reasons he or she is offering as psychological justification and continue to display an understanding and sympathetic demeanor in urging the suspect to tell the truth. 7. Presenting an Alternative Question. The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect’s guilt and develop as a logical extension from the theme, with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?” The investigator may follow the question with a supporting statement which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the alternative. 8. Having the Suspect Relate Details of the Offense. After the suspect accepts one side of the alternative thus admitting guilt, the investigator should immediately respond with a statement of reinforcement acknowledging that admission. The investigator then seeks to obtain a brief oral review of the basic events, before asking more detailed questions. 9. Converting an Oral Confession to a Written Confession. The investigator must convert the oral confession into a written or recorded confession. The website provides some guidelines, such as repeating Miranda Warnings, avoiding leading questions, and using the suspect’s own language. PEACE METHOD PEACE Model (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, Evaluation), developed in the United Kingdom in response to a number of documented forced confessions and wrongful convictions in the 1980s and 90s (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). STEP ONE: PLANNING AND PREPARATION It is one of the most important steps in investigative interviewing; without it, interviews may fall before they even begin. Planning – refers to the process of getting ready to interview, both mentally and strategically. Preparation – covers what needs to be ready prior to the interview such as the location of the interview, the environment, as well as technical and administrative matters. Essential Elements of Good Planning • Obtain as much background information as possible on the incident under investigation, including all relevant information on the person to be interviewed. • Assess what additional information is needed and how can it be best obtained. • Follow the legislation and associated guidelines and rules. • Understand the purpose of interview based on an investigation plan recognizing all the relevant and competing hypotheses to be explored, including the possibility that the suspect is innocent. • Prepare the technicalities of the interview (attending to exhibits, logistics, venue, equipment functioning, seating, lawyer, interpreter, and so on) (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). STEP TWO: ENGAGE AND EXPLAIN Engaging the interviewee and building rapport is the first step to encouraging a conversation. It is the most influential factor in ensuring productive interviews (Norwegian Center of Human Rights, 2017). At the outset the interviewee must be informed why they have been brought in for questioning and the formalities that apply. Officers must be aware that being interviewed can make people nervous and conversation that calms the interviewee may be needed. However, interviewers shall not work towards a pretend “friendship” with interviewees. The aim is to engage the interviewee so that a cooperative and relaxed relationship (one that stimulates memory and communication) is sustained throughout the interview (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 23). In engaging with the interviewee, the officer should seek the following (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017): 1. Create an empathetic and respectful relationship from the outset. 2. Explain the reasons, background, rights, formalities and procedure for the interview, including information about audio/video recording. 3. Establish certain ground rules by telling interviewees: • That what they have to say is important so they need to report everything they can and try their hardest no to leave anything out. • Not to edit as they go even if they believe some information has no relevance to the matter being investigated • That they need to concentrate because striving to retrieve memories can be hard work • That they should feel free to speak up if the officer: asks a question they do not understand; asks a question they do not know the answer to; misunderstand what the interviewee has said; asks a leading or inappropriate question. STEP THREE: ACCOUNT Interviewers should allow the interviewee to present their uninterrupted free account of the case or event under investigation; this is after establishing the ground rules for the interview. It is important that the interviewee is provided with the opportunity to present their side of the story, before more detailed questions are asked (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). Three main steps in getting the free account from the interviewee: 1. Introduce and explain the form and purpose of the free and uninterrupted account 2. Hand over the initiative (“give the floor”) to the victim, witness or suspect (as applicable) 3. Employ active listening while the interviewee presents the free and uninterrupted account Active listening assists the interviewer to establish rapport and help elicit a full and accurate account. Use TED’S PIE: Tell me, Explain, Describe Show Me-Precisely, In detail, Exactly. Using this approach helps build rapport and prevents the interviewer contaminating the account being given. The TED’S PIE approach makes use of encouragements/invitations to obtain an account (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). TYPES OF QUESTIONING OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Refers to the questions that allow the suspect to reply with longer, more detailed responses and lack direction from the interviewer. These can be questions such as; “What happened?” or questions that begin by asking the suspect to “tell”, “explain” or “describe” some event or situation (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p.26) CLOSED QUESTIONS Refers to the questions that require more definite and distinct answers. Examples include, “What time was that?”, “Who else was present?”, “What is his address?” such questions allow more control over what the suspect says and are useful where the suspect has left out information that you need. However, they can limit the account given (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26) FORCED-CHOICE QUESTIONS Refers to the questions that greatly restrict the possible answers to those that you have determined. The question may be “Was it a rifle or a handgun?” when the weapon may have been a shotgun. The suspect may simply pick one of the choices offered in order to please the interviewer or just move the questioning on. You should avoid these as they don’t suggest an open mind, and because answers may lie outside those conceived of by the interviewer. Do not limit the interview in this way (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26) MULTIPLE QUESTIONS Refers to the questioning where the interviewer asks more than one question at the same time. This can easily confuse an interviewee and make the answers given equally confusing to the interviewer. An example would be to ask, “When did he say that and what did he do and who else was present?” (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26). LEADING QUESTIONS Refers to the questions that induce a particular reply and may be judged to have manipulated the interviewee. An example would be to ask, “You wanted to injure him, didn’t you?” They can lead the suspect to the point where they agree with what was being said even where they are uncertain or have no clear memory (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26). STEP FOUR: CLOSURE As the interview comes to an end, the interviewing officer should explain what will happen next by giving the interviewee appropriate information about the next stages of the process: for example, inform suspects of potential pre-trial detention, tell witnesses whether or not they should expect to attend court, etc. (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017). Finally, the interviewee should be asked if they have any questions for the interviewing officer at this stage. This has little or no real effect if the communication has been coercive. However, if the interview has been conducted as outlined above, this question may add to the interviewee’s perception of having been treated fairly (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 26). The goal of the closure are the following (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017): 1. Ensure there is a mutual understanding of the interviewee’s accunt by reviewing and summarizing it 2. Verify that all aspects have been sufficiently covered by checking that interviewees have given all the information they are able and willing to provide 3. Secure the integrity and dignity of the interview, the legitimacy of any subsequent criminal proceedings, and keep channels open for future communication. STEP FIVE: EVALUATION This is the phase wherein the interviewee evaluates the entire process of the interview and determines if his objectives were met. He also evaluates the method he used in acquiring useful statements from the witness, victim, or suspect and the effectiveness of said method. (Galero-Muftuoglu, 2017, p. 186) If the interview is evaluated by a supervisor, senior officer or colleague, make sure that the interviewing officers are given the opportunity to comment on their own performance, before the evaluator gives their points, starting with what was positive, moving on to what could be improved next time (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017) LESSON 2 SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION 2 WITH INTERVIEW AND INTERROGATION MENDEZ METHOD The Mendez Principles, also known as the new Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering. It was named after Juan Mendez, the Argentine lawyer, torture survivor and former UN Special Rapporteur. It is a concrete alternative to interrogation methods that rely on coercion to extract confessions. They provide guidance on obtaining accurate and reliable information in full respect of the human rights and dignity of all, including through the implementation of legal and procedural safeguards in the first hours of police custody (IRCT, 2021). The Mendez Method has three parts; Before, During, and After the interview. BEFORE THE INTERVIEW – ENSURING A NON-COERCIVE ENVIRONMENT Creating a non-coercive environment involves the respect and fulfillment of human rights from the first moment of contact between the interviewee and authorities. This allows law enforcement, intelligence, security or military officials to create conditions conductive to gathering accurate and reliable information during the interview, to fulfill State obligations under international law and to protect the lights of the interviewee. Unlawful and unprofessional behavior, and a lack of accountability, at the early stages of contact may taint the overall judicial process irreversibly (Mendez, 2016, p. 14-15). KEEPING THE INTERVIEW INFORMED Showing concern for the interviewee from the initial contact is the first opportunity for creating trust and rapport. This is more likely when an interviewee is given early, explicit explanations of why they have brought in for questioning., which formalities apply, and how the interview will proceed. Explaining procedures and likely activities is an early opportunity to display sincerity, provide predictability, to be respectful and attentive, and promote trust. The right to be informed by the detaining authority about the reasons of arrest applies regardless of manner, or the formality or informality with which an arrest is conducted, and regardless of the reasons for the deprivation of liberty (Mendez, 2016, p.15). Information regarding an interviewee’s rights and how to exercise them should be conveyed verbally, in clear, non-technical, and precise language upon arrest; and it should also be provided in writing by the detaining authority upon arrival at the place of detention in a language and format they understand. NOTIFICATION OR FAMILY OR THIRD PARTY A key safeguard for detainees is their right to promptly notify a family member, friend, or other person of their choice about the fact, place and circumstances of their detention. The detaining authority is responsible for enabling the communication with the third party and recording who has been notified and when the notification took place (Mendez, 2016, p. 16). Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained must be informed immediately of their right to communicate with a consular and diplomatic representative of their country or origin. Asylum seekers should be informed of their right to contact relevant international agencies. Contact is to be facilitated by the detaining authority (Mendez, 2016, p.17). ACCESS TO LAWYER All detained persons being interviewed have a right to a lawyer, including through legal aid, before any questioning by authorities – independent of their status or formal designation. Access to a lawyer is inextricably linked to the protection of rights, prevention of torture and other ill-treatment, and helps to protect against compelled self-incrimination. The interviewee is entitled to a lawyer of their own choosing, or to have one provided for them free of charge when the interests of justice so require. The presence of the lawyer is compulsory for detained children interviewed as suspects (Mendez, 206, p.17). PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEWER Once an individual has been identified as a person the authorities wish to interview, the appointed interviewer should start thorough preparations. Being fully prepared increases an interviewer’s ability to effectively communicate with the interviewees, and hence, the likelihood of obtaining reliable information. Before commencing an interview, it is crucial to maximize the investigative and evidentiary value of the information already gathered. When preparing for an interview - and throughout the process – interviewers should exercise caution to avoid ‘confirmation bias’. Interviewers should continually monitor their own emotions about the subject matter and their feelings towards the interviewee, to be able to project calm and self-control throughout the interview (Mendez, 2016, p.19). DURING THE INTERVIEW – ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING RAPPORT Effective interviewers are adaptable, listen carefully, communicate empathy, and adopt the ethos that non-coercive, humans, ethical, lawful and appropriate questioning serves the interest of all involved: the interviewer, the interviewee and the information-gathering authorities. They recognize that the interviewer’s role is to acquire the best possible information for decisions to be made. Only courts determine guilt or innocence. The development of rapport is essential in supporting effective information-gathering. During the interview, rapport entails establishing and maintaining a relationship characterized by: respect and trust; a non-judgmental mindset; non-aggressive body language; attentiveness; and patience (Mendez, 2016, p.20). INFORMATION GATHERING TECHNIQUES Active listening helps the interviewer process the information provided by the interviewee. By listening actively, the interviewer shows that they are following what the interviewee is saying and making efforts to understand. The interviewer takes care not to lead the interviewee inadvertently by using verbal or visual cues, including sounds, gestures or questions, which may be interpreted as agreeing or disagreeing with what the person is saying. Accurate summaries of what the interviewee has said may facilitate the positive progression of the interview and assist the interviewer and interviewee in recalling important details (Mendez, 2016, p.21). ENCOUNTERING RELUCTANCE Interviewers may encounter interviewees who are reluctant to talk and therefore should anticipate how they will handle such situations. Not wanting or agreeing to answer questions may be a deliberate choice. This decision must always be respected and has no bearing on the interviewer’s right to the presumption of innocence. Reasons why an interviewee might be reluctant to talk can include general anxiety or uncertainty about the process, especially if the person has never been involved in such a situation before. It is also possible that an interviewee maybe willing to provide information but is unable to do so. This can be because they did not have the relevant information to begin with, or they failed to register the details. Interviewers should not draw negative inferences from the interviewee’s failure or refusal to answer questions and should remain non-judgmental when an interviewee may make admission to crimes or convey embarrassing information (Mendez, 2016, p.21). SUSPENDING THE INTERVIEW It is appropriate and permissible for interviewers to suspend the interview in order to follow-up on information received or conduct additional enquiries. Other reasons to suspend an interview are (Mendez, 2016, p.22): 1. If the interviewee requires medical attention, 2. If a person originally interviewed as a witness becomes a suspect in the course of an interview; and 3. If the lawyer or the interviewee may request a break, for instance in order to rest or to consult in private. A refusal to accept such a request by the interviewer may affect the reliability of information gathered from the interview. AFTER THE INTERVIEW – ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS An effective interviewer should always end the interview respectfully and on a professional note. This increases the likelihood of keeping channels open for future communication, avoids possible misunderstandings and can improve trust in public institutions. The interviewer should review the information obtained with the interviewee and the lawyer, if involved; and, where a written record (as opposed to an audio/video recording) has been made, invite them to sign as a confirmation of the record’s accuracy. An amendments should be recorded, and if relevant, any refusal of the interviewee to sign the interview record. Once the interview has been completed, the interviewer ensures that the information provided during the process is subject to the appropriate level of privacy and of data protection. The interviewer should assess and analyze the following (Mendez, 2016, p.23): 1. The value and reliability of the information obtained and how it fits with known evidence, information gaps and other intelligence gathered. 2. What further enquiries are necessary in order to advance the investigation or operation; and 3. Whether all relevant safeguards were applied effectively. KINESIC INTERVIEW METHOD Kinesic Interview Method involves analyzing a person’s behavior to assess deception (Orlando, 2014). The study of kinesics focused on observable outward physical behavior of the body in order to ascertain the person’s current emotional state and the role the body plays in communicating the information. It states that, by understanding the vocabulary of the body language, along with the diagnosis of a person’s verbal output, an interviewer could more easily assess a person’s truthfulness or deception regarding current issues under discussion (Walters, 2002, p.2). It has two phases: the Practical Kinesic Analysis Phase; and the Practical Kinesic Interrogation Phase. PRACTICAL KINESIC ANALYSIS PHASE During the analysis phase, the interviewer uses several techniques to observe and analyze the subject’s behavior in order to determine the subject’s truthful and deceptive behaviors or at least to determine those areas most sensitive to the subject and, therefore, in need of further attention through verbal inquiry. It recognizes the cues of truthful and deceptive behavior generated by the subject through: 1. Verbal Cues – this involves the identification of symptoms of speech quality and content which give the interviewer the most productive body of data necessary to determine truth and deception. 2. Practical Kinesic Statement Analysis – assessment of truth and deception through the use of verbal cues coupled with methods of human recall and symptoms made self-evident in the statement taking process. 3. Body Language Cues – it refers to the observable body language cues of deception that are unbalanced or inconsistent in relation to the speech cues or emotional symptoms generated by the suspect at the same time. 4. Kinesic Subject Control – it refers to the various techniques available to the interviewer to take control and command of the interview environment. From proxemics to mirroring or the use of enhanced information gathering skills. 5. Confession Behaviors – it is the verbal and nonverbal acceptance cues generated by a subject who is prepared to give an admission of confession. PRACTICAL KINESIC INTERROGATION PHASE Practical Kinesis Interrogation Phase involves the interviewer determining the subject’s frame of mind in response to the interview stress. It also helps the interviewer in determining if the subject is suffering from personality disorder or psychosis. It also helps the interviewer determine the subject’s personality type which enables him to understand how the subject thinks and to determine the subjects’ strengths to be avoided and the weaknesses that can be exploited. Lastly it will help the investigator in determining the defense mechanism of the subject which keeps the subject from having to face the reality of his actions; and by identifying and disarming these mechanisms, the interrogator can obtain admission or confession (Walters, 2002, p.3). GUIDELINES OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION According to the PNP Operational Procedures Manual (2011), the duties of the Police during custodial investigation are as follows: 1. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, shall ensure that a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall, at all times, be assisted by counsel, preferably of his own choice (PNP, 2011, p.33). 2. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must inform the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of the following rights under the Miranda Doctrine in a language or dialect known to and understood by him (PNP, 2011, p.33). a. That he has the right to remain silent; b. That if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can be used against him in court; c. That he has the right to counsel of his own; d. That, if he cannot afford one, he shall be provided with an independent and competent counsel; and e. That he has the right to be informed of such rights. 3. If the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation opted to give a sworn statement, the arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must reduce it in writing (PNP, 2011, p.34). 4. The arresting officer must ensure that, before the sworn statement is signed, or thumb marked, if there is inability to read and to write, the document shall be read and adequately explained to the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation by his counsel of choice, or by the assesting counsel provided to him, in the language or dialect known to him (PNP, 2011, p.34). 5. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must ensure that any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be (PNP, 2011, p.34): a. In writing; b. Signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; or c. In the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, priest, imam or religious minister chosen by him. It is important to note that failure of the arresting officer, or the investigator, to observe the above mention procedures shall render the extrajudicial confession inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding (PNP, 2011, p.34) 6. The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must, under established regulations, allow the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation visits by or conferences with the following: a. any member of his immediate family, b. any medical doctor, c. priest, imam or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or by any international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. 7. After interrogation, a person under custodial investigation shall have the right to be informed of his right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of his own choice. If he cannot afford the services of a doctor of his own choice, he shall be provided by the State with a competent and independent doctor to conduct physical examination. If the person arrested is female, she shall be attended to preferably by a female doctor (PNP, 2011, p.34-35). The physical examination of the person under custodial investigation shall be contained in a medical report, which shall be attached to the custodial investigation report. LESSON 3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION AND CONFESSION Admissions and confessions are only legally valid if made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with judicial or extrajudicial distinctions affecting their admissibility. DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS ●ADMISSION – A voluntary acknowledgment of a fact relevant to a case, which does not necessarily imply guilt. It can be judicial (made in court or pleadings) or extrajudicial (made outside court) and may be used as evidence against the declarant, though extrajudicial admissions are not conclusive and require proof of credibility and relevance. ●CONFESSION – A direct acknowledgment of guilt for the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein. Confessions are always statements of criminal liability and can be judicial or extrajudicial. CORE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Voluntariness – the statement must be given freely, without coercion, force, intimidation, or inducement. Any confession obtained through threats, violence, or improper influence is inadmissible. 2. Knowledge and Intelligence – the accused must understand the nature and consequences of the statement. This ensures that the confession or admission is made knowingly and intelligently. 3. Assistance of Counsel – during custodial investigation or after arrest, the accused is entitled to competent and independent legal counsel. Extrajudicial confessions made without counsel may be inadmissible as they violate constitutional rights. 4. Judicial vs. Extrajudicial Confessions: Judicial Confession – Made in open court or in pleadings; sufficient for conviction without additional evidence. Extrajudicial Confession – Made outside court; requires corroboration by independent evidence to be admissible. 5. Relevance and Evidentiary Value – the admission or confession must relate to facts in issue and not be excluded by privilege or other legal rules. Judicial admissions are conclusive, while extrajudicial admissions are evaluated for credibility and weight by the court. 6. Corpus Delicti Rule – a confession alone is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must establish that a crime has actually been committed. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION Admissions can be classified as judicial (made in the course of judicial proceedings) or extrajudicial (made outside of court). For Judicial Admissions: ●Can be made in pleadings, during trial via stipulations/manifestations, or at other stages such as pre-trial. ●Requirements: They do not require formal proof and are conclusive upon the party making them. They can only be contradicted by showing that they were made through a palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. For Extrajudicial Admissions: ●Must be relevant to the issue at hand. ●May be given in evidence against the maker (as an admission against interest), but are generally subject to regular rules of relevance and hearsay exceptions. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFESSION Because confessions directly admit criminal liability and carry heavy penal consequences, they face strict constitutional and statutory safeguards—particularly when made outside of court (extrajudicial confessions). To be admissible as evidence in court, an extrajudicial confession must meet the following mandatory requirements: Voluntariness: ●The confession must be given freely and knowingly. It must not be the product of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other influence that vitiates the individual's free will. Observance of Miranda Rights (Custodial Safeguards): ●If a person is under custodial investigation, they must be proactively informed in a clear, understandable manner of their rights: to remain silent, that any statement can be used against them, to have competent and independent counsel preferably of their choice, and to be provided free legal counsel if they cannot afford one. Assistance of Competent and Independent Counsel: ●The confession must be made with the active presence and genuine representation of independent counsel. ●Any waiver of the right to counsel must be made in writing and executed in the presence of the counsel. Form and Language: ● Extrajudicial confessions must ideally be in writing and signed (or thumb marked) by the confessant. ● They must be expressed clearly and interpreted/read to the accused in a language or dialect that they fully understand. The Exclusionary Rule: ● Under constitutional law, any confession obtained in violation of the right to counsel, Miranda rights, or through coercion is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding (the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine). Corroboration (Corpus Delicti Rule): ● An extrajudicial confession alone is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. It must be corroborated by independent evidence of the corpus delicti (proof that the crime actually happened and someone is criminally responsible). CORE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY Consciousness of Impending Death: At the time the statement was made, the declarant must have been under the fixed belief that death was near and inevitable. Complete despair of recovery must be apparent, though the exact moment of death does not need to be immediate. Subject Matter: The statement must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's impending death. Statements about unrelated past grudges or matters are inadmissible. Case Type Limitation: Traditionally and under most statutory rules (such as the Philippine Rules of Evidence), dying declarations are admissible primarily in criminal prosecution for homicide, murder, or parricide where the death of the declarant is the subject of the charge. Competency of the Declarant: The declarant must have been a competent witness at the time the statement was made (i.e., possessing the capacity to perceive and communicate the event). Declarant Must Be Deceased: The declarant must have actually died, and their death must be the subject of the inquiry. CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS ●The accused has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to confess. ●Any admission or confession must respect due process and fundamental rights under the Philippine Constitution DYING DECLARATION VS. INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENT Dying declaration and independent relevant statement are both types of statements made by individuals that are considered to be reliable evidence in court. However, the key difference between the two lies in the circumstances under which they are made. A dying declaration is made by a person who believes they are about to die, and their statement is considered to be particularly trustworthy due to the belief that they have no reason to lie. On the other hand, an independent relevant statement is made by a person who is not in imminent danger of death, but their statement is still considered to be reliable because it is made independently of any external influence or coercion. Both types of statements play a crucial role in the legal system in determining the truth of a matter. PRINCIPLES OF A DYING DECLARATION ●A dying declaration is an out-of-court statement made by a victim regarding the cause and surrounding circumstances of their impending death. Under the rules of evidence, it serves as an exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible because of the principle of necessity (since the declarant is dead and cannot testify) and the trustworthiness presumption (that a person at the point of death has no motive to fabricate the truth). INDEPENDENT RELEVANT STATEMENTS ●An independent relevant statement (sometimes referred to as verbal acts or statements relevant independent of the truth of the facts stated) is an out-of-court statement offered in court not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but simply to prove that the statement was made, heard, or that it had a legal effect. ●These statements are admissible in court if they meet the requirements of relevance and reliability. The declarant must have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the statement, and the statement must be relevant to the issues in the case. ●Because the truth of the utterance does not matter, these statements are not hearsay at all and are freely admissible. CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES Statements as Verbal Acts / Constitutive Facts: Words that legally constitute a crime, contract, or civil wrong. ●Example: Words of defamation in a libel case, or words offering a bribe in a corruption case. The statement is proven just to show it was uttered. Statements Showing State of Mind / Knowledge / Notice: Words used to establish what someone knew, their belief, or their mental state. ●Example: Telling a defendant that a specific machine is dangerous. This is admissible not to prove the machine is dangerous, but to prove the defendant had notice or knowledge of the danger. Statements Showing Effect on the Hearer: Words that explain why a listener acted the way they did. ●Example: Threats made to a victim to explain why the victim acted in self-defense or fled in fear. Identifications: Out-of-court statements identifying a person (e.g., a witness pointing out a suspect in a lineup), which are relevant to establish identification independent of the factual narrative. COMPARISON Dying Declarations are considered highly reliable due to the belief that a person facing imminent death would not lie. On the other hand, Independent Relevant Statements do not carry the same level of reliability, as they are not made under the same circumstances. Dying Declarations are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, while Independent Relevant Statements must meet the requirements of relevance and reliability to be admissible. Dying Declarations are made by individuals who believe they are about to die, and the statements pertain to the cause or circumstances of their impending death. In contrast, Independent Relevant Statements are made by individuals who have personal knowledge of the facts stated in the statement, and the statements are relevant to the issues in the case. Dying Declarations are often used in cases where the declarant's impending death is a central issue, such as murder trials. Independent Relevant Statements, on the other hand, are used to provide additional context or evidence to support a party's case. In some cases, both types of statements may be used in conjunction to strengthen a party's argument.

MIDTERM (LESSON 1)

SPECIALIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION 2 WITH INTERVIEW AND INTERROGATION

INTRODUCTION

Special crime investigation deals with the study of major crimes based on the application of special investigative technique. The study concentrates more on physical evidence, its collection, handling, identification and preservation in coordination with the crime laboratory. Special crime investigation involves a close relationship between the prober in the field and the crime laboratory technician. They work together as a team, reacting to and extending one another’s theories and findings both working patiently and thoroughly to solve a crime from their investigative discoveries.

The present criminal justice system in our country, the court relies more on physical evidence rather than extra-judicial confession.

WHAT IS INTERROGATION?

Interrogation is a process of questioning by which police obtain evidence. The purpose of an interrogation is to elicit from the suspect or from his or her relatives or associate's information that they may be suppressing in order to protect the suspect from being subjected to criminal prosecution (Galero-Muftuoglu, 2017, p. 187). Interrogation process is largely outside the governance of law except for rules concerning the admissibility at trial of confessions obtained through interrogation and limitations on the power of police to detain the suspected persons against their will.

THREE OBJECTIVES OF INTERROGATION

Aside from obtaining information detrimental to a suspect’s case, the following are the three objectives of interrogation:

1. Establish the innocence of a suspect by clearing up facts that seem to point to guilt;

2. Obtain from the suspect or relatives and friends of the suspect:

A. The names of accomplices;

B. The facts and circumstances surrounding the crime;

C. Follow-up leads provided unwittingly, or with ulterior motive, such as faking an alibi;

D. The location of stolen goods;

E. The location of physical evidence, such as documents, a weapon, or a burglar’s tool.

3. Obtain from the suspect alone:

A. Admission – it refers to the express or implied statement tending to support the suspect’s involvement in the crime, but insufficient by itself to prove guilt;

B. Confession – it pertains to an oral or written statement acknowledging it.

WHAT IS AN INTERVIEW?

Interview is defined as a structured conversation where one person or “interviewer” seeks to gather information from one another or the “interviewee” as part of any investigation or intelligence operation. The objective is to obtain accurate and reliable information while respecting human rights; eliciting facts is the aim, not confession. In the process of interviewing the suspects there is the added potential goal of obtaining an admission of guilt or a confession. However, this must not be the primary or sole purpose of interview as even a confession must be substantiated by information and evidence. This will reduce the likelihood of a false accusation and will also enable officers to present stronger case against the suspect, should a confession later be retracted.

WHAT IS AN INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW?

Investigative Interviewing, is a technique developed by practitioners to respond to the large body of scientific evidence that abusive and coercive techniques elicit unreliable information. It uses building rapport with the interviewee, which prevent abusive practices, and also improves the collection and reliability of information. It is a non-coercive approach using open questions to improve the flow of communication and information (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

GOALS OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW

1. Eliciting more accurate and reliable information during interviews.

2. Strengthening the capacity, efficiency, and professionalism of interviews.

3. Eliminating reliance on unlawful, ineffective, and counterproductive coercive questioning techniques.

4. Providing successful, affordable, and accessible methods and practices with minimal resources.

5. Delivering more effective information-gathering operations.

6. Fostering greater public trust in and cooperation with criminal justice institutions.

7. Ensuring that no person is subjected to coercion, torture or other forms of ill treatment.

8. Protecting the physical and mental integrity of all persons who interact with public authorities.

REID METHOD

Reid Method is also known as The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation, is the interrogation technique widely used by police departments. The Reid Technique involves three components namely:

1. Factual Analysis

2. Behavioral Analysis Interview

3. Interrogation (Nine Steps)

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

It is an inductive approach where each individual suspect is evaluated with respect to specific observations relating to the crime. It relies not only on crime scene analysis, but also on information learned about each suspect. Its goal is establishing an estimate of a particular suspect’s probable guilt or innocence based on such things as the suspect’s biosocial status like: gender, race, occupation, marital status, etc., opportunity and access to commit the crime, and evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence.

It is also intended to identify characteristics about the suspect and the crime which will be helpful during an interrogation of the suspect believed to be guilty such as motive or the suspect’s personality type.

BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS INTERVIEW

It is a non-accusatory question and answer session, involving both standard investigative questions and structured “behavior provoking” questions to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed. The investigator first asks background questions, to establish personal information about the suspect and allow the investigator to evaluate the suspect’s normal verbal and nonverbal behavior.

The investigator then asks behavior-provoking questions intended to elicit different verbal and nonverbal responses from truthful and deceptive suspects (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et.al., 2013, p.63). The investigator will also ask some investigative questions during this stage. It provides objective criteria to render an opinion about the suspect’s truthfulness through evaluating responses to the behavior-provoking and investigative questions.

INTERROGATION (NINE STEPS)

An interrogation only occurs when the investigator is reasonably certain of the suspect’s involvement in the issue under investigation (Inbau, F., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J. et.al., 2013, p.99).

This is composed of Nine steps, they are:

1. Direct, Positive Confrontation

2. Theme Development

3. Handling Denials

4. Overcoming Objections

5. Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention

6. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood

7. Presenting an Alternative Question

8. Having the Suspect Relate Details of the Offense

9. Converting an Oral Confession to a Written Confession

NINE STEPS

1. Direct, Positive Confrontation. This is where the investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person’s guilt. If the persons guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal.

2. Theme Development. This is where the investigator presents a moral justification(theme) for the offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in a sympathetic manner.

3. Handling Denials. When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage, likely to deny accusations, the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The innocent suspect are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to promptly and unequivocally deny the accusation.

4. Overcoming Objections. When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes objections to support a claim of innocence, phrases such as I would never do that because I love my job are commonly used. The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they where truthful, rather than arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme.

5. Procurement and Retention of Suspect’s Attention. The investigator must procure the suspect’s attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator’s theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect. The investigator should also channel the theme down to the probable alternative components.

6. Handling the Suspect’s Passive Mood. The investigator needs to intensify the theme presentation and concentrate on the central reasons he or she is offering as psychological justification and continue to display an understanding and sympathetic demeanor in urging the suspect to tell the truth.

7. Presenting an Alternative Question. The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect’s guilt and develop as a logical extension from the theme, with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?” The investigator may follow the question with a supporting statement which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the alternative.

8. Having the Suspect Relate Details of the Offense. After the suspect accepts one side of the alternative thus admitting guilt, the investigator should immediately respond with a statement of reinforcement acknowledging that admission. The investigator then seeks to obtain a brief oral review of the basic events, before asking more detailed questions.

9. Converting an Oral Confession to a Written Confession. The investigator must convert the oral confession into a written or recorded confession. The website provides some guidelines, such as repeating Miranda Warnings, avoiding leading questions, and using the suspect’s own language.

PEACE METHOD

PEACE Model (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, Evaluation), developed in the United Kingdom in response to a number of documented forced confessions and wrongful convictions in the 1980s and 90s (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

STEP ONE: PLANNING AND PREPARATION

It is one of the most important steps in investigative interviewing; without it, interviews may fall before they even begin.

Planning – refers to the process of getting ready to interview, both mentally and strategically.

Preparation – covers what needs to be ready prior to the interview such as the location of the interview, the environment, as well as technical and administrative matters.

Essential Elements of Good Planning

• Obtain as much background information as possible on the incident under investigation, including all relevant information on the person to be interviewed.

• Assess what additional information is needed and how can it be best obtained.

• Follow the legislation and associated guidelines and rules.

• Understand the purpose of interview based on an investigation plan recognizing all the relevant and competing hypotheses to be explored, including the possibility that the suspect is innocent.

• Prepare the technicalities of the interview (attending to exhibits, logistics, venue, equipment functioning, seating, lawyer, interpreter, and so on) (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

STEP TWO: ENGAGE AND EXPLAIN

Engaging the interviewee and building rapport is the first step to encouraging a conversation. It is the most influential factor in ensuring productive interviews (Norwegian Center of Human Rights, 2017). At the outset the interviewee must be informed why they have been brought in for questioning and the formalities that apply. Officers must be aware that being interviewed can make people nervous and conversation that calms the interviewee may be needed. However, interviewers shall not work towards a pretend “friendship” with interviewees.

The aim is to engage the interviewee so that a cooperative and relaxed relationship (one that stimulates memory and communication) is sustained throughout the interview (Boyle, and Vullierme, 2015, p. 23). In engaging with the interviewee, the officer should seek the following (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017):

1. Create an empathetic and respectful relationship from the outset.

2. Explain the reasons, background, rights, formalities and procedure for the interview, including information about audio/video recording.

3. Establish certain ground rules by telling interviewees:

• That what they have to say is important so they need to report everything they can and try their hardest no to leave anything out.

• Not to edit as they go even if they believe some information has no relevance to the matter being investigated

• That they need to concentrate because striving to retrieve memories can be hard work

• That they should feel free to speak up if the officer: asks a question they do not understand; asks a question they do not know the answer to; misunderstand what the interviewee has said; asks a leading or inappropriate question.

STEP THREE: ACCOUNT

Interviewers should allow the interviewee to present their uninterrupted free account of the case or event under investigation; this is after establishing the ground rules for the interview. It is important that the interviewee is provided with the opportunity to present their side of the story, before more detailed questions are asked (Norwegian Center for Human Rights, 2017).

Three main steps in getting the free account from the interviewee: