The interrogator-suspect dynamic in custodial interrogations for high-stakes crimes in Sweden: An application of the interrogation taxonomy framework.

This archival study was the first in Sweden, and the first outside of the US and the UK, to apply the (Kelly et al., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 165-178, 2013) taxonomy of interrogation methods framework to repeated police interrogations of adult suspects in high-stakes crimes. Audio/video recordings (N = 19) were collected from the Swedish Police Authority of repeated interrogations of three suspects in three criminal cases. The interaction between interrogators and suspects were scored according to the taxonomy framework (Kelly et al., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 165-178, 2013; Kelly et al., Law and Human Behavior, 40, 295-309, 2016). First, there was an association between the use of different domains. Rapport and relationship building was moderately and negatively associated with confrontation/competition and presentation of evidence. Moreover, confrontation/competition was moderately and positively related to emotion provocation and presentation of evidence. Second, changes were observed during the interrogations. Presentation of evidence was lower in the beginning than in the middle block. Suspect cooperation was higher in the beginning than both the middle and end blocks. Third, an ordered logistic regression showed that rapport and relationship building were associated with increased suspect cooperation, and confrontation/competition and presentation of evidence were associated with decreased cooperation. The study's results are mostly in line with other taxonomy studies on high-stakes crimes from the US and the UK. The findings are discussed in light of theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and current police practice. We also highlight the need for further research.

The detrimental impact of alcohol intoxication on facets of Miranda comprehension.

OBJECTIVE: Law enforcement officers often encounter alcohol-intoxicated suspects, suggesting that many suspects are presented with the challenge of grasping the meaning and significance of their Miranda rights while intoxicated. Such comprehension is crucial, given that Miranda is intended to minimize the likelihood of coercive interrogations resulting in self-incrimination and protect suspects' constitutional rights. Yet, the effects of alcohol on individuals' ability to understand and appreciate their Miranda rights remain unknown-a gap that the present study sought to address. HYPOTHESES: Informed by alcohol myopia theory (AMT), we predicted that intoxicated individuals would demonstrate impaired Miranda comprehension compared to sober individuals and those who believed they were intoxicated (but were in fact not; i.e., placebo participants). METHOD: After health screenings, participants completed the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition verbal subtests, rendering a Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) score. We randomly assigned participants to consume alcohol (n = 51; mean breath alcohol concentration [BrAC] = 0.07%), a placebo condition (n = 44; BrAC = 0.00%), or a sober control condition (n = 41; BrAC = 0.00%). All participants (N = 136) completed the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), which measured participants' understanding of the Miranda warnings, recognition of the warnings, appreciation of their rights in interrogation and court settings, and understanding of Miranda-related vocabulary. RESULTS: We found a significant effect of intoxication condition on participants' understanding of Miranda warnings (η²p = .14) and Miranda-related vocabulary (η²p = .05) when controlling for VCI scores. Specifically, intoxicated participants received lower scores for understanding of warnings compared to sober and placebo participants, and lower scores for understanding of Miranda vocabulary compared to sober participants. Alcohol did not significantly impact Miranda rights recognition or appreciation. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol intoxication may detrimentally impact some facets of Miranda comprehension. Thus, it is important that law enforcement consider refraining from questioning intoxicated suspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

No evidence that low levels of intoxication at both encoding and retrieval impact scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale.

RATIONALE: It is not uncommon for police to question alcohol-intoxicated witnesses and suspects; yet, the full extent to which intoxication impacts individuals' suggestibility in the investigative interviewing context remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The present study sought to measure the effect of alcohol-intoxication on interviewee suggestibility by implementing a standardized suggestibility test with participants whose intoxication-state was the same at both encoding and recall. METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (N = 165) to an intoxicated (mean breath alcohol level [BrAC] at encoding = 0.06%, and BrAC at retrieval = 0.07%), active placebo (participants believed they consumed alcohol but only consumed an insignificant amount to enhance believability), or control (participants knowingly remained sober) group. An experimenter then implemented the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS), which produced free recall outcomes (number of correct details and memory confabulations) and suggestibility outcomes (yielding to leading questions and changing answers in response to negative feedback from the experimenter). RESULTS: Intoxicated participants recalled fewer correct details than did placebo and control participants but did not make more confabulation errors. No effects of intoxication on suggestibility measures emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Moderately intoxicated interviewees may not be more suggestible during investigative interviews than sober interviewees. However, before concrete evidence-based policy recommendations are made to law enforcement, further research is needed examining the effects of alcohol on suggestibility in conditions that are more reflective of the legal context.

Mock jurors' perceptions and case decisions following a juvenile interrogation: Investigating the roles of interested adults and confession type.

OBJECTIVE: Interested adults, such as parents and attorneys, may pose as safeguards against juveniles' vulnerabilities during custodial interrogations; yet, the trial-level ramifications of their presence are unknown. The current research examined mock jurors' perceptions and case decisions after they read about disputed juvenile confession evidence elicited in the presence of an interested adult. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that when reading about a voluntary confession (vs. coerced or none), participants would be more likely to convict, find the defendant vulnerable, and view his interrogation less negatively. When an interested adult (parent or attorney) was present, we anticipated an increase in convictions, lower vulnerability perceptions, and less negative views of the interrogation, and especially so when the adult encouraged the juvenile to speak. METHOD: Jury-eligible participants in Study 1 (N = 435) and Study 2 (N = 673) read a case about a 15-year-old male charged with murder and then completed a post case questionnaire. We manipulated confession type (coerced, voluntary, none) in both studies, interested adult's mere presence (parent, attorney, no adult) in Study 1, and adult advice (parent/attorney prompting the defendant to keep quiet or speak) in Study 2. RESULTS: Overall, findings demonstrated higher conviction rates when there was a voluntary confession (vs. coerced or none). Study 1 revealed that a parent's or attorney's presence inflated conviction rates, and Study 2 demonstrated that adults' advice did not affect convictions or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Interested adults' presence during juvenile interrogations seems to legitimize confession evidence instead of protecting juveniles at the trial level. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).