PHOTO CAPTION: "James Tillman speaks in 2018 about the 18 years he spent in prison wrongfully convicted before an Innocence Project DNA test helped free him."
GIST: "With the passage of recent legislation in Illinois, Oregon, and Utah and coverage by national media — including a recent segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver — the public has become aware of the maddening reality that law enforcement can and do lie to people in interrogations in order to trick them into confessing. They do this in spite of the well-documented risk this poses for eliciting false confessions and the proven reliability of other methods. In Connecticut alone, three innocent people — two adults and one child — have already been exonerated after being coerced by police into falsely confessing to murders they didn’t commit.
Right now, the Connecticut state legislature is deciding if courts should consider whether lies police tell to innocent suspects during an interrogation might have caused them to falsely confess. Senate Bill 306 would, for the first time, require prosecutors in Connecticut to demonstrate that a statement made by someone in interrogation is reliable, but only when law enforcement commits an act known to coerce false confessions such as lying and telling them that there was evidence they committed a crime. However, this seemingly straightforward reform to establish what most people likely already believed was the case is still meeting resistance.
Wicklander-Zulawski, one of the largest international law enforcement trainers, knows this decision all too well, as it chose to cease teaching this controversial technique entirely in 2017. The danger posed and the lack of necessity for it in modern policing is why WZ and the Innocence Project, along with other members of law enforcement and false confession experts, have joined together to support reforms such as SB306 to make sure legislatures know that rejecting deceit is a choice proven to enhance public safety.
The relative obscurity of this tactic is in part why it’s been so effective, and why its use has been favored by interrogators and trainers of law enforcement in the past. However, with the availability of DNA evidence, and with efforts from organizations such as the Innocence Project, we have seen definitive proof that false confessions are elicited through these techniques and that those confessions have gone unchecked by judges, juries and prosecutors.
In Connecticut, we know of three innocent people already who spent a combined 36 years in prison after falsely confessing due to deceptive interrogations. That’s 36 years during which the actual murderers remained free, empowered with the knowledge they’d gotten away with the crime and no one would be looking for them. In the first 375 exonerations based on DNA evidence, the true perpetrators were subsequently detected in 50 percent of those cases and had committed another 154 violent crimes while an innocent person took their place in prison.
The use of deception tactics during a custodial interrogation trades the truth for an incriminating statement so that a conviction — any conviction — is secured. Introducing lies about evidence has also proven to contaminate the memories of a suspect and innocent people have not only been tricked into falsely confessing but have come to believe they actually had memories of the crimes that occurred. Connecticut has a seminal case in this regard in that of Peter Reilly whose trust in law enforcement overrode his own memory of being nowhere near the scene of the crime.
While many see the obvious need to remove deceptive and unethical techniques from interrogation, there can be a concern for many ensuring that police can still investigate crimes. Fortunately, removing deceptive interrogation techniques not only mitigates the risks of false confessions but also provides investigators with more efficient, evidence-based techniques to get information from suspects. Interrogations have proven to be most effective when their goal is obtaining reliable information and building rapport with a suspect. Investigators who demonstrate authenticity, transparency and honesty in their conversations can better facilitate cooperation in both the interview setting and long-term community-police relationships.
WZ has trained more than 200,000 investigators including law enforcement personnel from 34 of the top 50 largest police departments in the United States. WZ’s decision to cease the training of deceptive tactics was based on the important collaboration of 34 years of experience and the incorporation of academic research. These evidence-based approaches to policing support that nonconfrontational, rapport-based methods are more reliable and successful in obtaining actionable intelligence. This aligns with the overwhelming body of academic research and practical experience.
While many members of law enforcement have already moved entirely away from this tactic, SB306 would offer a balanced approach to reform. Instead of an outright ban, it discourages its use while still allowing a court to admit confessions procured under such conditions it deems reliable. Some may still argue about whether there is ever a necessity for lies in the pursuit of justice but we can all agree that the reliability of a confession should be made apparent in all circumstances. Connecticut should pass SB306 and reject the false choice between public safety and deceit.
https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Opinion-The-false-choice-between-deceit-and-17117030.php
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
