In the United States, deception is a routine tool in interrogations to elicit confessions. Nearly all successful interrogations involve some form of police deception. Law enforcement often uses the Reid technique, a "guilt-presumptive" interrogation method designed to secure a confession. U.S. courts are supposed to use a "totality of the circumstances" analysis to determine if a confession was coerced, but the Reid technique is rarely ever scrutinized when evaluating the evidence and the potential for an invalid confession.
Outside the U.S., this practice is rare. After several high-profile cases of false confessions due to coercion, the United Kingdom reformed its justice system. One key change was the introduction of the PEACE model, which focuses on gathering facts and information rather than obtaining a confession. This "investigative interviewing" method aims to elicit accurate, relevant, and complete accounts from suspects. UK courts also prohibit deceptive tactics by officers, with some officers noting that this prohibition helps gather more information, as suspects trust that they won’t be lied to.
If justice is the goal, an interrogation strategy focused on gathering information seems less problematic than one aimed solely at securing a confession. Norway, New Zealand, and Australia have adopted the PEACE model, and since its introduction, other countries have abandoned the Reid technique, calling it "unethical and unreliable." The U.S. has begun to take notice, with at least two states banning police deception when interrogating juveniles, a small but positive step.
The problem with confessions obtained through deceit is that experiments show individuals will falsely confess when presented with fabricated evidence. In one experiment, participants were shown falsified evidence of cheating during a gambling task, and every participant confessed. The issue isn't just the confession itself but that once made, a confession—whether true or false—is hard to retract.
Deceptive interrogation techniques are taught in law enforcement manuals, and studies confirm that officers rely heavily on them, often neglecting other strategies. Richard Leo, a leading expert on police interrogations, calls deception "the defining feature" of U.S. interrogations. Officers may also use an "evidence ploy," where they falsely claim to have evidence of the suspect's guilt, pressuring them into confessing. This technique suggests to the suspect that their guilt is unquestionable, and that resistance is futile.
There is a very legitimate reason countries outside the U.S. rarely use the tactics in the U.S. to try and garner confessions: It simply does not work and largely generates false confessions. Reform is greatly needed to adjust an outdated and ineffective law enforcement model for interrogation.
While local law enforcement in the United States routinely records interrogations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rarely does. Instead, agents rely on handwritten notes taken during interrogations, which are later transcribed. This process allows agents to selectively include only the information they deem relevant, often resulting in conflicting accounts between agents and suspects or missing key details. This inconsistency presents a significant problem in trials, where these FBI notes often play a critical role in the prosecution's case.
There is an urgent need to reform how the FBI collects information from witnesses during interviews. The current practice of relying on agents' notes—often written from memory—can lead to significant errors, as memories can fail or be distorted over time. These inaccuracies can affect the outcome of criminal cases, with agents frequently testifying based on flawed memos that contribute to wrongful convictions.
In 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a policy encouraging the recording of interviews with individuals in custody, creating a "presumption" for recording. However, this policy only applied to those in custody, and it allowed prosecutors and agents to justify not recording interviews based on broad reasons. Additionally, the policy failed to address the need for recording interviews with witnesses who are not in custody, further complicating the process.
The FBI and DOJ have generally resisted efforts to mandate recording all interviews. The FBI argues that not recording interviews helps build rapport with witnesses and that witnesses might be less forthcoming if they know they are being recorded. However, building a rapport should never come at the expense of accuracy—especially when it could lead to the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent person.
Handwritten notes also give the DOJ a strategic advantage in court. In a 2006 memo, the FBI defended its practice, acknowledging that "perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay people as proper means of obtaining information." The memo further explained that initial resistance from a suspect could be misinterpreted as involuntariness, and that misleading defendants about the evidence against them could appear as unfair deceit.
This position reveals a fundamental distrust of the jury system, which should be entrusted with evaluating the accuracy of statements made during interrogations. The jury should be allowed to hear the exact content of the questions asked, the tone of the questioning, and the precise words of the witness—not a summary of those words written by an FBI agent. In the pursuit of justice, accuracy must take precedence over strategy.
The FBI’s practice of relying on handwritten notes rather than recordings has been detrimental to the justice system, leading to failed prosecutions and, in some cases, wrongful convictions. These issues could be largely avoided if the FBI simply recorded every interview it conducted. In2022, a series of high-profile cases highlighted the consequences of the FBI’s failure to adopt this practice.
It is time for reform. The FBI should prioritize accuracy over convenience and ensure that every interview is recorded. Only then can the agency build a more reliable and just framework for criminal trials. The need for this reform is long-due, and the stakes are too high to ignore.
In the United States, prosecutors often grant immunity to individuals who refuse to testify, particularly those who are themselves involved in criminal activity. This legal tool allows the government to compel testimony from witnesses, even if they have been charged with serious crimes. While the system can yield valuable insights into criminal activity, it also raises important questions about fairness, bias, and the reliability of the testimony provided. The practice of witness immunity is notably rare in other countries, which often cite its potential for abuse and the distortions it can create in legal proceedings.
Witness immunity is most commonly used when the government needs the testimony of someone who is reluctant to cooperate—typically someone charged with crimes themselves. By offering immunity, prosecutors can encourage individuals to testify without the fear of self-incrimination. There are several reasons why immunity may be offered. First, under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals have the right to refuse to answer questions that could potentially incriminate themselves. This creates a challenge for prosecutors seeking to gather evidence, particularly when the people holding crucial information are themselves involved in the crime. Immunity enables these individuals to provide testimony without fear of facing charges based on what they reveal. Additionally, witnesses who are facing criminal charges often have their own biases—particularly if the prosecution is targeting someone they know or have worked with. In many instances, these witnesses may claim that the individual under investigation is innocent, despite evidence to the contrary. Prosecutors may then offer full immunity to encourage the witness to change their story and cooperate. This can be enough to convince reluctant witnesses to testify in a way that aligns with the government's case.
While immunity agreements can yield important testimony, they come with significant risks. One of the key issues is the potential for perjury, as witnesses may exaggerate or fabricate details to ensure they meet the conditions necessary to secure the benefits of immunity. This is particularly true when the government's offer of immunity is contingent on the quality of the testimony, with prosecutors promising more lenient treatment in exchange for favorable testimony. Although perjury is a concern, civil lawsuits against the government or the witnesses themselves are rarely successful. In many cases, the defendants lack the financial resources to pursue such claims, which significantly limits the accountability for false testimony. As a result, perjury cases arising from immunity deals are almost nonexistent.
In the courtroom, cross-examination serves as the primary means by which the defense can challenge the credibility of a witness, including those who have received immunity. Defense attorneys are given the opportunity to ask questions that expose potential biases or motivations behind the witness's testimony. However, cross-examination is not always as effective as it could be. In some courts, such as the Southern District of New York, judges may limit the scope of cross-examination, preventing defense attorneys from fully exploring the motivations and reliability of government witnesses. This creates an inherent imbalance in the trial process, as the defense is often unable to scrutinize immunity deals effectively.
While the United States uses immunity deals extensively, other countries have been more cautious in adopting similar practices. Some nations, such as the United Kingdom, have studied the U.S. justice system and considered incorporating witness immunity into their own legal frameworks. However, immunity deals in the UK are rare and are generally only used in specialized cases, such as those involving organized crime or terrorism. The UK’s Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) of 2005 allows for immunity in limited circumstances. However, these deals are rarely offered, and there is considerable resistance to them within the UK legal system. Immunity deals have not become a widespread practice in the UK, and there are few examples of such agreements being made since SOCPA came into effect. In contrast, in the United States, immunity deals have become a standard part of the legal process. Prosecutors routinely offer these agreements, even in cases where the witness has committed serious crimes. This widespread use of immunity, despite its potential for abuse, highlights a fundamental difference between the U.S. legal system and those of other countries.
The use of witness immunity in the U.S. legal system remains a contentious and controversial practice. While it can provide prosecutors with essential testimony, it also introduces the potential for biased, unreliable, or even false testimony, especially when witnesses are motivated by the promise of leniency or immunity. The widespread use of immunity deals in the U.S. contrasts with the more cautious approach taken in other countries, where the risks associated with such agreements are viewed as outweighing the benefits. Ultimately, the practice of witness immunity raises important questions about fairness, the integrity of legal proceedings, and the balance of power between prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI, have a history of leaking sensitive information to the media during ongoing investigations. This practice, known as "tickling the wires," has been used to generate leads from the public, often targeting individuals who may or may not be directly involved in a case. In the past, the FBI routinely employed this tactic by leaking details to the media in the hopes of gathering information from citizens, sometimes using intercepted phone calls or surveillance. Today, this practice has spread beyond the FBI, with state and local law enforcement occasionally engaging in similar behavior.
Leaks to the media are often unauthorized by official public information officers and are instead carried out by agents working on specific cases or under the supervision of those in charge of investigations. These leaks can be both illegal and contrary to FBI protocol, and they are problematic in several ways. While law enforcement agencies may argue that these leaks help with investigations, the consequences can be dire. In many cases, they lead to biased and damaging media reports about individuals who are never charged with a crime, thereby ruining their reputation and lives.
In 2016, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG) began investigating the FBI’s practice of leaking information to the media. Over the course of five years, the OIG released several reports on the FBI’s interactions with the press, uncovering troubling patterns of unauthorized contact between FBI employees and journalists. These reports revealed that many FBI agents, from the highest levels to lower-ranking officers, were in frequent contact with reporters despite having no legitimate reason to do so. The OIG also found that some of these interactions could have violated FBI policy and Department of Justice ethics guidelines.
Among the most disturbing findings were reports of FBI agents accepting tickets to sporting events and media galas, as well as former senior officials having numerous unauthorized social interactions with journalists. In one instance, an FBI official was found to have met with reporters for dinners and drinks, creating the appearance of an improper relationship between law enforcement and the media.
While some agents who were assigned to public affairs roles adhered to policy, others acknowledged their media contacts but denied sharing non-public law enforcement information. However, the rationale for speaking with reporters remains unclear—why would an FBI agent engage with the media unless they were providing information that wasn’t meant for public consumption? These findings were compounded by the fact that many FBI agents were uncooperative with the OIG’s investigation, making it difficult to fully uncover the scope of the problem.
The dangers of unauthorized media leaks go beyond internal FBI policies. Leaks often target individuals who are not charged with any crime, potentially ruining their lives and reputations. Once the media publishes a story, it becomes challenging for those accused of a crime—whether they are guilty or not—to regain their credibility. In high-profile cases, a leak can create a biased public perception that will follow the individual, even if they are later found innocent.
In the context of criminal investigations, the relationship between law enforcement and the media can have profound consequences. It creates a dangerous cycle where public opinion is shaped by incomplete or biased information, making it harder for accused individuals to get a fair trial. Journalists who rely on law enforcement sources may unwittingly contribute to the problem by publishing unverified or misleading information, painting a negative picture of someone who is merely a person of interest in an investigation.
In one prominent case, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that the FBI's leaks to the media were not enough to dismiss a criminal case. However, he expressed shock at the extent of the FBI’s media connections, stating, "To say I was shocked would be an accurate statement." Judge Castel referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential prosecution on charges of criminal contempt or obstruction of justice. Despite his recommendation, no charges were filed against the FBI employees involved, a stark reminder of the systemic challenges in holding law enforcement accountable.
The public should be deeply concerned about the widespread practice of law enforcement leaking information to the media. It puts innocent individuals at risk and undermines the integrity of criminal investigations. A single leak can damage a person’s reputation beyond repair, influencing public opinion and potentially biasing juries in criminal cases. The legal system must do more to ensure that law enforcement officers who engage in these breaches of protocol face appropriate consequences.
To prevent further harm, both the FBI and other law enforcement agencies must tighten their internal policies on media interactions and hold employees accountable when leaks occur. The public trust depends on law enforcement agencies operating with transparency and integrity, and these unauthorized leaks undermine that trust. As the OIG report makes clear, the FBI’s practices must be reformed to prevent future leaks that can cause irreparable damage to the lives of innocent Americans.
