Reference no: EM132257422
How does an investigator prepare for an interview or interrogation? Are there differences?
1) Interviews and interrogations have significant differences when it comes to actually conducting them; however when it comes to preparing for interviews and interrogations, they are very similar. First of all, the investigator needs to take time to prepare for the conversation they are about to engage in.
In order to do that, they need to know as much as they can about the allegation/investigation. They also need to know as much as they can about the person they're planning to illicit information from. Such information can assist the investigator with establishing rapport and determining biases or barriers that may prevent the individual from talking (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, & Taylor, 2012, p. 127).
The investigator needs be fully aware of their objective and what information they're trying to obtain. Based on my personal experience, I'd say that there are no significant differences when it comes to preparing for an interview or interrogation. Regardless of who is being talked to, whether it's a suspect, victim, or witness, the investigator needs to know as much as they can about the investigation as well as the individual being talked to.
2) Find a state supreme court or state appeals case from your state in which a conviction of a defendant from a lower court was overturned due to improper police tactics during an interrogation. Discuss and properly list the website. In Missouri v. Seibert, Patrice Seibert was afraid she would be charged with neglect because of bedsores located on her 12-year-old son Jonathan's body. Jonathan had cerebral palsy and died in his sleep. In Seibert's presence, Seibert's two sons and their two friends came up with a plan to conceal the facts surrounding Jonathan's death.
They planned to burn the family's mobile home along with Jonathan's body. They also planned to leave Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager living with the family, to avoid any appearance that Jonathan was left unattended. Seibert's son and a friend set the fire, and Donald died. Seibert was arrested approximately five days later and once they arrived to the police station, Seibert was left alone in the interview room for approximately 20 minutes before being questioned without Miranda warnings for 30 to 40 minutes. The officer interviewing her squeezed her arm and repeated "Donald was also to die in his sleep" until Seibert finally said yes. Once Seibert admitted that Donald was to die, she was given a 20-minute coffee and cigarette break.
When she returned to the interview room, the officer started the recorder and then advised her of her Miranda warnings before repeating the same questioning, thus obtaining the same responses (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004). Seibert was charged with first-degree murder and moved to suppress both her pre-Miranda warning and post-Miranda warning statements. The trial court suppressed her pre-warning statements but admitted the post-warning statements (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004). Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. Seibert appealed and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court.
he Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the decision holding that since the interrogation was continuous, Seibert's second statement was clearly a product of the first statement and should have been suppressed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split decision in the Courts of Appeals.
The US Supreme Court provided the question-first tactic renders Miranda warnings ineffective by waiting for a particularly opportune time to give them, after the suspect has already confessed. The US Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Missouri's decision (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004).
References
Missouri v. Seibert. (2004, June 28).
Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., & Taylor, R. W. Criminal Investigation (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2012.
150 WORDS AGREE OR DISAGREE