What Defense Lawyers Look for in Interrogation Video

Most lawyers know a confession is very persuasive to a jury.  But the confession itself is only part of the picture.  Often, the real value is found in how the statement was obtained, what was suggested, what was ignored, and what a jury may see that others miss.

Three areas worth close attention:

1. Who Supplied the Facts?
Did the suspect freely provide details, or were facts introduced first by investigators and later adopted? Leading questions, repeated suggestions, and officer-fed details can become important issues.

A statement in which a suspect provides non-public details can be very strong. In contrast, when the suspect’s details appear to have been fed to him, the admission becomes far easier to scrutinize.

2. Promises, Threats, or Implied Leniency
Pressure is not always obvious. Sometimes it sounds like:
• “Help yourself.”
• “I’d hate to charge you with something higher.”
• “Don’t make things worse by not confessing.”

I reviewed an interrogation for a defense attorney in which the detective said, “I don’t care what you do, I’m going home soon.”

The suspect responded, “What does that mean for me?”

The detective replied, “You can go home too, if you tell me the truth.”

Take a guess where the suspect went after he “told the truth.”

3. How Will a Jury View the Detectives?
Even when a statement comes in, video can still shape a jury’s reaction. Talking over someone, mocking them, arrogance, or unnecessary aggression may create problems that go beyond admissibility.

One thing I teach officers is this: not all jurors like cops. Watch how you come across on video.

After more than two decades in law enforcement, homicide investigations, and interview training, I’ve learned that the confession is only one part of the story. The process surrounding it often matters just as much.

Sometimes the strongest issues in a case are not obvious on first viewing. A trained second set of eyes can make a difference.