26 i Police and Law Enforcement—Adult Forensies
made by the subject during interrogation. Obviously, the courts need clear evidence
ot guilt it a subject is to be convicted of a crime. As stated previously, the most
impressive and conclusive evidence one can obtain is a confession by the accused.
This evidence must not come at the expense of the subject's personal autonomy;
if personal autonomy were to be sacrificed, then unlawful tactics may as well be
utilized to obtain the same end.
While one may be tempted to believe that police interrogations take place in
prime-time television fashion, complete with 200-watt light bulbs, 8-hour grueling
question-and-answer sessions, yelling in the face of the accused, and fist pound-
ing, the reality is that the majority of interrogations normally do not take place
in such a style. Leo (1996) describes, using observations from 122 interrogations
involving 45 different detectives, the processes and tactics utilized during a vari-
ety of interrogation sessions incorporating everything from homicide to property
crimes. His results indicate that overall, coerced confessions occur less often than
one may believe. However, he did state that he "... occasionally observed behavior
inside the interrogation room—such as yelling, table pounding, or highly aggressive
questioning—that straddled the margins of legality" (p. 270).
When Leo's results are broken down, we find that about 78% of the interrogated
subjects ultimately waived their Miranda rights. In seven (4%) of the cases observed,
the detective continued questioning the subject even after invoking their Miranda
rights. The types of tactics used were: appealing to the suspect's self-interest (88%),
confronting suspect with existing evidence of guilt (85%), undermining suspects
confidence in denial of guilt (43%), identifying contradictions in suspect's story
(42%)), behavioral analysis interview questions (40%), appealing to the importance
of cooperation (37%), moraljustifications/psychological excuses (34%), confronting
suspect with false evidence of guilt (30%), using praise or flattery (30%), appealing to
detectives expertise/authority (29%), appealing to the suspect's conscience (23%),
and minimizing the moral seriousness of the offense (22%).
Less frequently used tactics were also implemented, possibly suggesting coercion:
invoking metaphors of guilt (10%), exaggerating the facts/nature of the offense (4%)),
yelling at suspect (3%); accusing suspect of other crimes (1%), and attempting to
confuse the subject (1%)). In all, detectives used an average of 5.62 interrogation
tactics.
Leo (1996), analyzing this data, states that according to his necessary conditions
for coercion, police questioning involving coercive methods took place in only four
(2%) of the cases. Further analysis of these four cases reveals that only psychologically
coercive methods were used as opposed to physically coercive methods. In one case,
detectives intentionally questioned a heroin addict suffering from acute withdrawal
symptoms during the second day of his incarceration, knowing his symptoms were
at their worst. In another case, the "good cop—bad cop" routine was utilized on a
young gang member. One detective promised the youth's release if he cooperated,
while the other stated that he would provide the prosecutor with incriminating
information. The suspect provided the desired information and was subsequently