Running head: I CANT TELL THE TRUTH

I Cant Tell the Truth and I Dont Know Why

Chloe Lamb

First Colonial High School

Legal Studies Academy

Abstract
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 2

This paper is an overview of the law enforcement system put into place, the interrogation

techniques that are used, and are legally allowed to use, and exactly how that affects the suspects

and victims that may cross paths with it. This paper first covers the psychology of interrogation

and how the current system works, then begins to lay out how there are problems with

interrogation since it may be considered communication and law enforcement are not trained to

treat it that way. Then it covers the laws that restrict interrogation, and aid both law enforcement

and the interviewees, after that it has sections on the victim of a crime and how interrogation

may affect them, and the way a suspect is affected by interrogation. This paper points out the key

differences in the psychological field viewpoint on interrogation of law enforcement, and how

law enforcement themselves feel on the subject, ultimately coming to the conclusion that both

parties should work together to make a more efficient legal system.

Keywords: law enforcement, interrogation, questioning, psychology, law, suspect, victim

I Cant Tell the Truth and I Dont Know Why

I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 3

Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst agent Aldrich Ames once said,

Because Interrogations are intended to coerce confessions, interrogators feel themselves

justified in using their coercive means. Consistency regarding the techniques is not important;

inducing anxiety and fear is the point. Interrogation in its purest form has been around since the

first law system was put into place. It is also used in many forms, for any type of law

enforcement agency. This includes local police station officers, to federal agents of the CIA. Due

to the broad nature of interrogation, it is better focus on what is done locally, and how that affects

both the suspect of a crime, and the victim of a crime. For the suspect of a crime, interrogation

techniques and practices may possibly induce law enforcement malpractice, false confessions,

and violation of the suspects rights as laid out in the Constitution of the United States. In regards

to the victim of a crime, investigation tactics and certain factors of communication both verbally

and non verbally creating the possibility of the victim lying partially or wholly about the

situation due to their concerns about safety of themselves and those close to them. The

interrogation and investigation techniques used by law enforcement threaten the honesty and

reliability of both the suspect and the victim of a case by using negative psychological

techniques in a questioning situation.

The Psychology of Interrogation

As long as interrogation has been around, it has been considered an art of coercion. The

goal of the interrogator is to break the suspects statement down and make the suspect confess

because in the modern interrogation world, law enforcement assume that because a suspect is

being questioned, they are guilty and see it in their best interest to deny all guilt. Interrogators

and law enforcement have no desire to have an innocent person confess; however, combining

their assumption with certain subtle psychological factors, law enforcement may elicit a false
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 4

confession, making modern police interrogation a problem in the modern world (Scott v. State,

2005).

Interrogation is Communication

Interrogation is defined as follows: to question formally and systematically; especially :

to gather information from (a suspect) by means that are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating

responses (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.). This may be considered to be communication

due to the fact that both verbal and nonverbal factors are at play in order to elicit a response from

a certain party. It is due to the fact that interrogation is communication that psychological factors

ultimately play a role in the type of response law enforcement will receive from the subject of

questioning. Communication itself is made up of both nonverbal and verbal cues, with non

verbal communication making a significant difference in how the intended message of the sender

is interpreted. While verbal communication may be broken down into two categories, formal and

informal, the messages intended and interpreted are very rarely different due to the

straightforward nature of verbal communication. Nonverbal communication, however, can be

broken down into six categories: chronemics, vocalics, haptics, kinesics, proxemics, and

artifacts. These categories are interpreted nonverbally in order to either supplement the verbal

message, or to interpret the personality, emotional state, or relationship with the person they are

communicating with. The first of nonverbal communication is chronemics, which has to do with

time in terms of social interaction. For example, the time one arrives or leave a place would be a

nonverbal indication of personality. Vocalics is another form, having to do with the voice,

without consideration of the words being spoken; for example tone of voice and volume would

be an indicator of emotional state. Haptics has to do with touch, for example touching someone

when talking being an indicator of the feelings. Kinesics is another form of nonverbal
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 5

communication, having to do with body language, for example the unconscious gestures one

makes while listening or speaking. Proxemics has to do the proximity of a person when

communicating, being an indicator of social standing. The last nonverbal communication factor

is artifacts, like accessories the person is wearing on their body, being an indicator of personality,

and interests (Surbhi, 2015). It is due to the fact that a significant portion of nonverbal

communication is based off of interpretation rather than literal that it is easier to misread signals

sent and received from both oneself and others. However, since this communication does have a

basis of some kind it is possible to be more aware of the signals being sent out from oneself

making communication easier on both parties. Verbal cues on the other hand have less of a

chance to be misinterpreted, with the understanding that it is still possible (Surbhi, 2015).

False Confessions and Lying

In 1969, a study was published on defendants and how they use their Miranda rights in

relation to their feelings about the law enforcement system and the people who work within that

system. This study focused on five things: the defendant's reaction to arrest situations, his

perspective on the law enforcement system, his knowledge of the legal rights during the initial

arrest, his understanding of the prior proceedings establishing those rights, and his grasp on the

criminal law procedure. The results of this study proved that anomic defendants, people who

have negative and skeptical views of the world, were less likely to know about their legal rights,

but were also less likely to offer statements to police (Zeitz, Medalie, & Alexander, 1969). While

ones feelings on the system of law enforcement in place currently do have an affect on

interviewees, there are other psychological factors that play a role in determining how one acts

while being interviewed by law enforcement. For example, females and young children are more

likely to be more reserved and intimidated, therefore more likely to be influenced by relentless
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 6

questioning, non-open ended questions, and presentation of false evidence (J. K. Denson,

Personal communication, November 9th, 2016).There are also those who submit false

confessions because they wish to be cooperative with the officer, and that confessing may result

in them receiving clemency; people more likely to do those who do not have the capacity or wish

not to think of the long term consequences of making a confession. Theres also those who the

belief that they must have committed the crime due to psychological factors messing with their

subconscious (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). There also happen to be some police

investigation techniques that are more prone to producing false confessions than others. In

Canada, police have created a new way for undercover cops to elicit confessions; however,

through this technique the chances of receiving a false confession have expanded exponentially.

The technique as described in the article is referred to as the Mr. Big technique. This technique

involves an undercover cop befriending the suspect of a particular crime over the course of

months, spending money on the person in doing activities. The undercover agent then invites the

suspect to join a criminal organization that is actually run by the cops, where they complete

simple activities. After a period of time, the suspect is then informed that they are to advance

within the ranks of the organization; however, before they are to receive the promotion, they

must confess to a crime in return. The suspect is convinced that the confession is for a purpose

through a couple of ways, for example, that the confession is necessary leverage against them

should the issue of betrayal arrive. The confession of the crime is done a majority of the time

orally, sometimes being written, and recorded by the undercover agent for the purpose of being

used in court. This technique had many risks associated with it. One is that if a false confession

should come forward, other evidence and police investigations are then altered from the correct

suspect of a crime (Smith, Stinson, & Patry, 2010). Another technique that may be liable to
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 7

produce false confessions is the producing of false evidence; however, not much research has

been done into the actual results and possible skewing this technique may provide, and the author

suggests that research be done into this technique in particular.

Laws Relating to and Boundaries of Interrogation

It is due to the fact that interrogation is considered to be an art of coercion that laws are

needed to regulate law enforcement to assure the interviewees rights. The United States

Constitution does overview and protect certain rights for suspects, seen in a few of the

amendments such as amendments fourth through the eighth upholding suspects rights so that the

people's rights will not be breached. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the searching and

confiscation of private property without probable cause, or a warrant. The Fifth Amendment

protects suspects from being held for a federal crime unless indictment of a grand jury, having

a trial for the same crime twice, to testify against oneself, and the right to the due process of

law. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of the suspect in the trial developing in a

reasonable time period with the option of a trial by jury of ones peers, to cross examine

witnesses testifying against him, and to obtain a defense lawyer either through private means or

the public defender's office. The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury when

the trial is a civil case. The Eighth Amendment prohibits disproportionate fines, bail, and

prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment ("Bill of Rights," n.d.).

Besides the fact that the United States Constitution protects the suspects rights, there are

other federal and state laws that protect both the suspect of a crime, and the victim of a crime.

There are some states that require recording of all interrogation done while a suspect is in

custody, such as Alaska.In the court case of Stephan v. State, the Supreme Court of Alaska

became the first state of the United States of America to require law enforcement officials to
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 8

record all questioning procedures when a suspect is in custody. This case was a follow up case in

regards to the case of Mallott v. State in which the Supreme Court of Alaska decided that law

enforcement officials must record questioning of a suspect when they are taken into custody. In

this case the petitioners, Malcolm Scott Harris and Donald Stephan were taken into custody and

questioned by law enforcement officials in which both men made incriminating statements.

Recording equipment was present during the interrogation, but was not used during all of the

questioning. Due to the Mallott rule precedent, which stated that law enforcement should record

the questioning when a suspect is in custody as fully as possible, the law enforcement officers

violated the proper proceedings. After the case went to trial and both men were found guilty, they

filed for appeal, in which the Alaska Court of Appeals decided that the officers were in violation

of the Mallott ruling, but refused to reverse the ruling of the lower court. Thus, the men filed for

another appeal and it was heard by the Supreme Court of Alaska. This court decided that the

action of not recording the questioning of a suspect in custody is in direct violation of a suspect's

constitutional rights (Stephan v. State, 1985). According to Thomas Sullivan, Andrew Vail, and

Howard Anderson III, it would be beneficial to both law enforcement officials and the suspect of

a crime if the interrogation was recorded from reading the Miranda rights to the conclusion. They

also state that the recording of interrogation saves time in the judicial proceedings because it

captures reactions and a verbatim recording that cannot be reproduced in later testimony and

questioning (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). There are currently 24 states who mandate

stationhouse recording of all interrogations. Two of these states, did so before the 21st century.

Alaska, as mentioned previously, became the first in 1985 with a State Supreme Court ruling,

and Minnesota became the second in a 1994 case. After that it was ten years before more state

started joining in this strategy. In 2004, Maine passed a statute, and Massachusetts held this with
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 9

a case. Then in 2005, Wisconsin and New Jersey both had a case in which this ruling was held.

In 2006, the District of Columbia and New Mexico passed a statute, while Iowa held a case

regarding the issue. In 2008, Maryland and Nebraska both passed a statute regarding the issue. In

2009, Indian had a case, while Missouri and Montana passed a statute. In 2010, Ohio and Oregon

passed a statute. In 2012, Arkansas had a case, and Michigan passed a statute. In 2013 California

passed a statute requiring the recording of stationhouse interviews. In 2014, Connecticut and

Vermont both passed a statute in the same regard. Utah was the most current state to uphold this

in 2015, with a State Supreme Court adoption of this law. While these states had no trouble in

getting the population to accept and follow these rulings, two states had to review it multiple

times. North Carolina passed a statute in 2007 and 2011 regarding the issue. Illinois passed

statutes in 2002, 2005, and 2013 that now uphold this law ("Custodial Interrogation Recording

Compendium by State," 2014). While many states have mandated recording, the author suggests

that more states do so due to the benefits mentioned previously in the section.

There are some techniques that are used widely throughout the United States that have

common themes of producing an unintended effect. In fact, a study done by the innocence

project showed that 27 percent of a 130 case study of exonerations after conviction was a result

of false confessions (Causes and remedies of wrongful convictions as cited in Sullivan, Vail, &

Anderson, 2008). More studies on that topic, a study done by two professors revealed that 35

percent of a 125 felony case study involved false confessions, and convicted as a result (Drizin &

Leo as cited in Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). The Mr. Big technique used by the Canadian

law enforcement mentioned previously in this paper is one prominent example of how some

techniques are more likely to elicit false confessions than others, but there are also more

commonly used techniques that do not require substantial amounts of money (Smith, Stinson, &
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 10

Patry, 2010). In the United States specifically there are some techniques used by law

enforcement that are legal to use, for example the production of false evidence and the use of a

false depiction of sympathy for the suspect have a strong possibility to contributing to these

numbers (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008). Over the years there have been many court cases

determining what is acceptable in terms of interrogation and what is not. Precedents prevent

police from using immoral tactics, but the entire questioning technique is based off the

assumption that a suspect is guilty sees it in their best interest to deny the claim as previously

mentioned in this paper. Questioning techniques are then based on asking a question a certain

way, and then evaluating the response time, with the goal being to catch the suspect in the act of

lying (J. K. Denson, Personal communication, November 9th, 2016).

Victim Interrogation

So much of our justice system has a primary focus on what the rights of the suspect are in

order to uphold the ideal that our society would rather have a guilty person go free than have an

innocent person held for a crime they did not commit. It is because this is the focus that the rights

of a victim may be overlooked. The victim of a crime, however, does have certain rights as laid

out by the Crime Victims Rights Act of 2004.

According to Victim Law, and the Office of Justice Programs, the core rights of a victim

include:

The right to be treated with fairness, dignity, sensitivity, and

respect;
The right to attend and be present at criminal justice proceedings;
The right to be heard in the criminal justice process, including the

right to confer with the prosecutor and submit a victim impact statement at

sentencing, parole, and other similar proceedings;

I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 11

The right to be informed of proceedings and events in the criminal

justice process, including the release or escape of the offender, legal rights and

remedies, and available benefits and services, and access to records, referrals, and

other information;
The right to protection from intimidation and harassment;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to privacy;
The right to apply for crime victim compensation;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to the expeditious return of personal property seized as

evidence whenever possible;

The right to a speedy trial and other proceedings free from

unreasonable delay;
The right to enforcement of these rights and access to other

available remedies (n.d.)

These rights are undoubtedly important, but there are also programs in some state, like Virginia

that do significant social work in making sure the Victim works efficiently with the

commonwealth attorney's office. In Virginia this program is called the Victim and Witness

Assistance Program. This program is a non-profit organization that works in conjunction with the

commonwealth attorneys office to offer assistance to victims of a crime and make sure they get

the resources they need to make it through the trials of going to court ("Virginia Victim

Assistance Network," 2016).

While a victims rights are protected by the law, there are some psychological factors that

can play a role in misunderstanding vital communication signals to where a victim doesnt feel

safe enough to tell the truth regarding an investigation. This is due to the difference in predator

and prey communication signals found in body language, and the natural aspect of which one

takes on according to our experiences. The natural communication signal for an adult human is
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 12

that of a predator, one seeks excitement, and despises boredom. A prey animal, however, seeks

the opposite, wishing most of all to be safe, and live in a place in which predictability of the

future is present. This is the key difference which affects our body language, with predators

being less cautious and more bold in their body language. While the natural communication

signal of an adult human is predatory, younger children, and victims of a crime give off the cues

of a prey animal. This is done unconsciously because of the change in our goals. It is because of

this reversion that victims of a crime make unconscious decisions when faced with a person

whose body language reflects that of a predator. Predatory body language is straightened back,

high shoulders, walking in a straight line, sitting directly in front of someone and looking them in

the eye and while these are natural things that happen unknowingly, these signals do affect

communication. This affects the way a victim will view the situation, and their reflection on

whether they feel safe or not. If a victim is made to feel unsafe for any reason, whether it be

subtle body language cues done unintentionally, or other factors, a victim will be more likely to

lie partially or wholly about their situation, interfering with the investigation process (Edwards,

2016). This has a possibility of interfering with the investigation process, but there are also ways

to avoid this. The author suggests law enforcement learning about subtle body language cues and

what they communicate, and to learn what the difference in predator and prey body language

really is. This will help not only communication with a victim of a crime easier, but

communication in daily life when one begins to understand reactions to certain factors.

Suspect of a Crime Interrogation

The suspect of a crime has rights laid out by the constitution as laid out earlier in the

paper, but there are also factors that need to be reconsidered. The Eighth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United State of America is the amendment in which excessive bail, excessive
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 13

fines, and cruel and unusual punishment are all prohibited (Amendment VIII, n.d.). This is in the

best interest for the suspect of a crime, however, cruel and unusual punishment can apply also to

the interrogation of a suspect rather than solely the punishment of guilty parties. James Denson, a

psychology teacher with a bachelor's degree in psychology, agrees that an interrogation might be

in violation of the Eighth Amendment if the suspect is subjected to long amounts of questioning

without breaks, and denying the suspect sleep, food, or bathroom breaks (J. K. Denson, Personal

communication, November 9th, 2016).

When interrogation of the suspect of a crime occurs, theres also the consideration of

false confessions, as mentioned previously in this paper. In order to review the statistics

involving false confessions, one must consider the three main types of false confessions. First

theres the compliant false confessions. These type of confessions are done because the suspect

considers the temporary benefits than the consequences one may face in the future (Sullivan,

Vail, & Anderson, 2008). This also has to do with temporal discounting. Temporal discounting is

a psychological theory in which the immediate situation influences a person's choices more

strongly than the suspended situation. A person does this because they are under the assumption

that what is immediate is certain to happen, and assume that the suspended situation is moreso

probability than the certainty. Therefore, in the situation related to police interrogation, the result

may have influenced by a couple of unconscious decisions. They may have believed that the

interrogation would be forgotten by the experimenter, that they might be able to avoid the request

to come back, or that they may exercise their right to be withdrawn from the study (Madon,

Guyll, Scherr, Greathouse, & Wells, 2012). The second type is the voluntary false confession.

This type of false confession is done for multiple reasons rather than one common purpose.

Some wish to protect the real criminal, while others wish for publicity and attention. There are
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 14

multiple examples of this being the case, such as over 200 confessing to kidnap Charles

Lindberghs baby. The final type is the internalized false confessions. These confessions

happen when over the course of an interrogation the suspect comes to the conclusion that they

have committed the crime for multiple reasons. The suspect is placed interrogation room,

isolated from reality outside of the interrogation, and under great amounts of stress, exhausted

and disoriented suspects being the most vulnerable, police then are legally allowed to confront

them with false evidence. The suspect follows a pattern with internalized confessions, starting

with outright denial, then follows with doubt, which then converts to believing they must have

done it, and finally a complete internalization of the crime (Sullivan, Vail, & Anderson, 2008).

While police arent intentionally eliciting false confessions for malicious reasons, the law

enforcement system is shaped in such a way that these incidents happen more often than they

should.

Conclusion

In researching the law enforcement system in place and the effects of that system, the

author has come to the realization that while the current system works, it is not the most efficient

system . Law enforcement interrogation is done in such a way that both suspects and victims can

find themselves in vulnerable situations that jeopardize the rights in place as set out by the laws

of the land. While both suspect and victims do have rights set out by law, it does not cover the

subtle loops that psychologically affect both parties. Interrogation was not created and is not used

to be an evil that recants rights, but unless the law enforcement and psychology and social work

community come together to review the problems laid out previously in the paper, the system

will not work as efficiently as the possibility allows. The law is the law, but where the laws fail,

we must inevitably adapt and conquer.

I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 15

References

Ambinder, M. (2009, April 21). Military's interrogation techniques: A history. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/04/militarys-interrogation-techniques-a-

history/16469/

Bill of Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-

documents/bill-of-rights/

CIA tactics: What is 'enhanced interrogation'? (2014, December 10). Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11723189

Coughlin, A. (2009). Interrogation stories. Virginia Law Review, 95(7), 1599-1661. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25593654

Crime victims' rights act. (2016, July 22). Retrieved from

https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act

Criminal investigation and police interrogation of aborigines. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/22.%20Criminal%20Investigation%20and%20Police

%20Interrogation%20of%20Aborigines/law-relating-interrog

Custodial interrogation recording compendium by State. (2014, April 11). Retrieved from

https://www.nacdl.org/usmap/crim/30262/48121/d/

Definition of interrogation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/interrogate#legalDictionary

Denson, J. K. (2016, November 9th). The psychology of interrogation [Personal interview].

I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 16

Dripps, D. (1988). Foreword: Against police interrogation: And the privilege against self-

incrimination.The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 78(4), 699-734.

doi:10.2307/1143405

Edwards, S. (2016, December 18). Come Home for Christmas. Retrieved from

http://msindianhorses.blogspot.com/2016/12/come-home-for-christmas_18.html

Farrington, D. (1981). Psychology and police interrogation. British Journal of Law and Society,

8(1), 97-107. doi:10.2307/1409836

Feld, B. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of policy and practice. The

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 97(1), 219-316. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042825

Flintoff, C. (2009, April 22). Timeline: History of harsh interrogation techniques. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103376537

4 Police interrogation techniques you should know (And why not all of them work). (2014, April

24). Retrieved from http://forensicoutreach.com/library/4-police-interrogation-techniques-

you-should-know-and-why-not-all-of-them-work/

Gibson, D. A., Billings, R. B., Callow, G., Dunn, M., Greene, N. L., Kellam, J. L., . . . Taslitz, A.

(n.d.). Electronic recording of custodial interrogations act. National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Retrieved from

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/electronic%20recordation%20of%20custodial

%20interrogations/custodialinterrog_draft_am09.pdf

Heuback, J. (2010). Suspect interrogation: Communication strategies and key personality

constructs. Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/suspect-interrogation-

communication-strategies-and-key-personality-constructs-jessica-heuback/default.htm
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 17

Inbau, F. (1999). Police interrogation: A practical necessity. The Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology (1973-), 89(4), 1403-1412. doi:10.2307/1144188

Kassin, S., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating

promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 233-251.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394113

Kassin, S., Leo, R., Meissner, C., Kimberly D. Richman, Lori H. Colwell, Amy-May Leach, &

Dana La Fon. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police

practices and beliefs.Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381-400. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4499542

Kleinman, S. M. (2009). The promise of interrogation v. the problem of torture. Valparaiso

University Law Review, 43(4), 1577-1590. Retrieved from

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1128&context=vulr

Leo, R. (1996). Miranda's revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law & Society

Review,30(2), 259-288. doi:10.2307/3053960

Madon, S., Guyll, M., Scherr, K., Greathouse, S., & Wells, G. (2012). Temporal discounting: The

differential effect of proximal and distal consequences on confession decisions. Law and

Human Behavior, 36(1), 13-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43598488

Magid, L. (2001). Deceptive police interrogation practices: How far is too far? Michigan Law

Review,99(5), 1168-1210. doi:10.2307/1290529

McCoy, A. W. (2006, December 6). The U.S. has a history of using torture. Retrieved from

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/32497
I CANT TELL THE TRUTH 18

Meissner, C., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. (2010). The need for a positive psychological

approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law

and Human Behavior, 34(1), 43-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40608056

Surbhi, S. (2015, April 2). Difference between verbal and nonverbal communication. Retrieved

from http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-verbal-and-non-verbal-

communication.html

Scott v. State (Court of Appeals of Texas March 24, 2005) (Google Scholar, Dist. file).

Smith, S., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. (2010). High-risk interrogation: Using the "Mr. Big

technique" to elicit confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 39-40. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40608054

Stephan v. State (December 6, 1985) (Google Scholar, Dist. file).

Sullivan, T., Vail, A., & Anderson, H. (2008). The case for recording police interrogations.

Litigation,34(3), 30-38. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23800729

U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII.

Victims rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.victimlaw.org/victimlaw/pages/victimsRight.jsp

Virginia victim assistance network. (2016). Retrieved from http://vanetwork.org/about-us/

Zeitz, L., Medalie, R., & Alexander, P. (1969). Anomie, powerlessness, and police interrogation.

The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 60(3), 314-322.

doi:10.2307/1141985