Interrogation Tactics

[nursebeeme]

Do they have to read her-her miranda rights prior to interviewing her? That would be a hard pill to swallow if those tapes were not admissible because of it, ugh!

this is where it gets simple....(or should have if it were a normal missing child case)...

Cynthia called cops to report the child missing... they called LE to HELP FIND THE CHILD. If you lock your keys in your car or call out cops to report stolen gas cans they don't read you miranda before they give you any help.

Miranda came at the time of her arrest.... when she was obstructing them from finding the child, etc and had led them in literal circles to fictitious places and interviewed her friends who gave conflicting stories.

 

[nancy botwin]

Do they have to read her-her miranda rights prior to interviewing her? That would be a hard pill to swallow if those tapes were not admissible because of it, ugh!

I think the released interview/interrogation will definitely fall under scrutiny-- it's probably the best thing Baez has to argue. For Miranda rights to apply, 2 conditions must be met:
1. person is "in custody"
2. LE is "interrogating" that person

Each Miranda challenge is evaluated on the specific circumstances -- I think it's clear that Casey is being interrogated. I think it's definitely up to debate whether or not she is "in custody." -- Custodial interrogation can occur in a variety of settings, even a suspect's own home. I think Baez will argue that because LE picked Casey up at her home and drove her to Universal Studios, she was effectively stuck at Universal until they agreed to drive her home. I think that's a dumb argument, but I think it's the one he'll make. I really hope this interrogation isn't suppressed over Miranda-- and I don't think it will be. But I think it'll be a really big issue before Casey's trial begins-- and that the arguments will all center around what creates a custodial situation.
Even if the door is open, a person can be in custody for the purpose of Miranda.

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

Thanks for the info Nancy and Nurse - let's keep our fingers...and toes crossed that it's admissable. On another note, I posted this on another thread and I'll pose it here.

FBI Involvement
Tonight, we heard Yuri's going with an FBI agent. I'm not sure how often the FBI site is updated but I looked for Caylee under their kidnapped/missing children investigations page (Trenton Duckett's there) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/kidmiss.htm seeking information page, which lists unsolved cases (Natalee Holloway's there) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seekinfo/seek.htm and wasn't able to find her.

I wonder if at this point, they're not classifying her under any of these categories? Your thoughts?

 

[reefshadow]

Whatever happend to the "good guy - bad guy" method of interrogating? All I hear on those tapes is the "good guy" method. I guess they don't want to give her attorney any firewood to work with.

I think in this case they probably decided to take it easy in order to prevent her from lawyering up and keep her talking. The minute someone demands legal representation the interview is *over*, period.

It must be tough to maintain the balance.

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

OK, found the part in the NG transcript of her 9/15 show that made me start wondering about this. Sorry for the long post - just wanted to provide context.

GRACE: We are taking your calls live and playing you this audio tapes just released. Now very quickly to the lawyers. Did you hear that? Did you hear her say, yes, she took my daughter? She`s had her now for over a month. And I tried to e-mail her twice, but, oops, it bounced back. Jason Oshins, thoughts?
JASON OSHINS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Listen, she is obviously very good and polished at what she is doing. I think you are right. Law enforcement`s intent is to get these small minor felony offenses against her and perhaps they could get her to crack when she`s in.
GRACE: I don`t need a lawyer to tell me that. Angelo in New York just called that one in.
OSHINS: Exactly.
GRACE: But what`s the likelihood she`s going to crack, Mazzariello?
MICHAEL MAZZARIELLO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, HOST OF "CLOSING ARGUMENTS": I don`t think she`s going to crack. She`s smooth. What I didn`t like about the tapes, Nancy, between the first interview and the second interview, they deemed her to be a suspect at that second interview.
It was an interrogation. She was entitled to an attorney. They should have Mirandized her, they did not. That bothers me.
GRACE: You know what? They did Mirandize her.
MAZZARIELLO: I didn`t hear that.
GRACE: I hear you chiming in, good point?
MAZZARIELLO: Well, that was at the end. At the end of that.
OSHINS: At second interrogation.
MAZZARIELLO: At the end they swore her -- they swore her, Jason.
OSHINS: Exactly.
MAZZARIELLO: . and said, is this true. They didn`t Mirandize her.
GRACE: They Mirandized.
OSHINS: At the end.
MAZZARIELLO: Is it true?
GRACE: . her at the beginning.
MAZZARIELLO: I didn`t hear that. They didn`t swear her until the very end.
GRACE: That`s because I`ve only played a few moments.
MAZZARIELLO: No, Nancy.
GRACE: As a matter of fact.
MAZZARIELLO: We heard the whole thing. We heard both tape.
OSHINS: At the end.
MAZZARIELLO: We heard -- in the entirety.
GRACE: There is a signed Miranda form. I assume she can read. Take a listen to this.

That's it on anything having to do with the subject. She goes on to play more of the interviews.

 

[Spangle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest.


They specifically address this at the beginning of the tape. The door is unlocked, you are not being detained, we would like to talk to you. She could have gotten up and walked out. She may or may not have been arrested at that point, but she was free to leave at the time of questioning. No Miranda rights needed.

Yes, they were making sure that was on tape. I wondered about that when I heard it. I thought it was odd. Now I realize it was a CYA.

 

[EastSideOfSaddness]

Thanks all for your valuable information

 

[hinkymeter]

I have have not found anything stating that sawgrass apts has any type of security what so ever. Maybe mentioning this was something over looked on the brochures and websites of the complex. Again, doesn't mean it isn't there I just haven’t found proof of it.

Where do you get the idea that Sawgrass had to put the surveillance clause on literature or their website?

As long as there's a sign posted on the property stating that there is a possibility you will be recorded, it's all good.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[nancy botwin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
...
They specifically address this at the beginning of the tape. The door is unlocked, you are not being detained, we would like to talk to you. She could have gotten up and walked out. She may or may not have been arrested at that point, but she was free to leave at the time of questioning. No Miranda rights needed.

I was thinking more about this, and how big an issue "custody" will be. LE was definitely on shaky ground, IMO.

If Casey Anthony were a completely different person--i.e., an innocent and terrified mother who is desperate to find her child-- the circumstances present in the Universal Studios "interview" would probably be determined a custodial interrogation and the interview would be thrown out.
The police did pick her up and drive her to Universal Studios. They did stop right where they caught Casey in her biggest lie-- in the hallway where she said she had an office, at a business where she said she was actually employed-- and lead her into a conference room where they started questioning her right there. A NORMAL person with feelings would probably experience that conference room as a coercive space-- especially since she didn't have her own transportation. A NORMAL person who desperately needed LE to help her find her child as soon as possible, would likely feel obligated, and somewhat psychologically "trapped," into sitting at the site and talking to LE until they believed her and took her home so they could go look for her child. I think that with a different suspect, this interview could definitely be thrown out.

I think the length of the interview will also be at issue. Courts can and do determine that a seemingly non-custodial situation becomes custodial after a long period of time-- because NORMAL people are intimidated by authority figures and could begin to feel so stressed out and intimidated that they experience the interrogation as something they cannot stop. I stress NORMAL because Casey, in my personal opinion, is a raging psychopath, so I think standard Miranda analysis won't help her out.

I get a small personal charge out of this because we've seen how much Casey's personality has allowed her to get away with in life. She clearly prides herself on an ability to remain "level-headed" and talk her way out of things. I love that this strategy will probably blow up in her face pre-trial, when they allow this interview into evidence.

 

[Spangle]

Thanks for the info Nancy and Nurse - let's keep our fingers...and toes crossed that it's admissable. On another note, I posted this on another thread and I'll pose it here.

FBI Involvement
Tonight, we heard Yuri's going with an FBI agent. I'm not sure how often the FBI site is updated but I looked for Caylee under their kidnapped/missing children investigations page (Trenton Duckett's there) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/kidnap/kidmiss.htm seeking information page, which lists unsolved cases (Natalee Holloway's there) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seekinfo/seek.htm and wasn't able to find her.

I wonder if at this point, they're not classifying her under any of these categories? Your thoughts?

My opinion is that they don't consider Caylee missing. They consider this a homicide.

When KC took them to US, walked through the office hallways to her office... That showed the police how far she is willing to go before admitting she lied. When it was pointed out that no one has lived in that apartment.. hence.. a provable record, she changed her store to dropping her off at the stairs.. Something that she thinks can't be proven.. like a job or apartment.

 

[impatientredhead]

I was thinking more about this, and how big an issue "custody" will be. LE was definitely on shaky ground, IMO.

If Casey Anthony were a completely different person--i.e., an innocent and terrified mother who is desperate to find her child-- the circumstances present in the Universal Studios "interview" would probably be determined a custodial interrogation and the interview would be thrown out.
The police did pick her up and drive her to Universal Studios. They did stop right where they caught Casey in her biggest lie-- in the hallway where she said she had an office, at a business where she said she was actually employed-- and lead her into a conference room where they started questioning her right there. A NORMAL person with feelings would probably experience that conference room as a coercive space-- especially since she didn't have her own transportation. A NORMAL person who desperately needed LE to help her find her child as soon as possible, would likely feel obligated, and somewhat psychologically "trapped," into sitting at the site and talking to LE until they believed her and took her home so they could go look for her child. I think that with a different suspect, this interview could definitely be thrown out.

I think the length of the interview will also be at issue. Courts can and do determine that a seemingly non-custodial situation becomes custodial after a long period of time-- because NORMAL people are intimidated by authority figures and could begin to feel so stressed out and intimidated that they experience the interrogation as something they cannot stop. I stress NORMAL because Casey, in my personal opinion, is a raging psychopath, so I think standard Miranda analysis won't help her out.

I get a small personal charge out of this because we've seen how much Casey's personality has allowed her to get away with in life. She clearly prides herself on an ability to remain "level-headed" and talk her way out of things. I love that this strategy will probably blow up in her face pre-trial, when they allow this interview into evidence.

Every state has their own procedure for miranda rights and what the court considers proper notification. They took her to a place she was familiar with, around people she supposedly knew, there were people just outside the door, there were phones she could use to call for a ride. They put her on tape and said the door is unlocked, you are NOT being detained, we would LIKE to clarify a few things, is that okay.... she said yes. Anyone in that case has chosen to willingly talk and couldn't get their statements thrown out.

When they leave a note on your door and ask you to call you can decline. When they ask you to come in and chat, you can decline.

In one of the statements taken in the 400 pages, actually two if I recall correctly, they are in a car, the officer states on tape we are in a car located at, the doors are unlocked, you are not being detained, you are freely choosing to speak to me, is that correct? That is obviously the standard in Fl.

 

[nancy botwin]

OK, found the part in the NG transcript of her 9/15 show that made me start wondering about this. ...
(snipped)
GRACE: They Mirandized.
OSHINS: At the end.
MAZZARIELLO: Is it true?
GRACE: . her at the beginning.
MAZZARIELLO: I didn`t hear that. They didn`t swear her until the very end.
GRACE: That`s because I`ve only played a few moments.
MAZZARIELLO: No, Nancy.
GRACE: As a matter of fact.
MAZZARIELLO: We heard the whole thing. We heard both tape.
OSHINS: At the end.
MAZZARIELLO: We heard -- in the entirety.
GRACE: There is a signed Miranda form. I assume she can read. Take a listen to this...

Thanks for pasting in the excerpt!
One of the fun things about watching NG is that you can always tell when a guest attorney makes a good pro-defense argument. When she gets an annoyed look on her face and interrupts the attorney speaking, it's a good time to note that they were probably saying something intelligent and pro-defense. When a guest attorney says something stupid/incorrect and pro-defense, Nancy tends to revel in it and takes some time to specifically unpack why they are wrong. I think NG misspoke when she blurted out that she had the signed Miranda waiver in front of her and then she just moved on and started playing more tape.

I think that if there really was a signed Miranda waiver, it would have been in the 400 pgs of documents, appended to the released interview transcript. I think this is a case where Nancy Grace did her standard move and silenced a good pro-defense argument.

 

[nancy botwin]

Every state has their own procedure for miranda rights and what the court considers proper notification. They took her to a place she was familiar with, around people she supposedly knew, there were people just outside the door, there were phones she could use to call for a ride. They put her on tape and said the door is unlocked, you are NOT being detained, we would LIKE to clarify a few things, is that okay.... she said yes. Anyone in that case has chosen to willingly talk and couldn't get their statements thrown out.

When they leave a note on your door and ask you to call you can decline. When they ask you to come in and chat, you can decline.

In one of the statements taken in the 400 pages, actually two if I recall correctly, they are in a car, the officer states on tape we are in a car located at, the doors are unlocked, you are not being detained, you are freely choosing to speak to me, is that correct? That is obviously the standard in Fl.

Miranda is a Constitutional issue. If each state had a different standard, the Supreme Court would have to be open 24-7. LE in every state have to Mirandize those in custodial interrogation. If I'm "interviewed" in Florida, Oregon or New Jersey, I have the same Miranda rights. Miranda violations are determined on a case-by-case basis, evaluating specific circumstances and interpersonal dynamics-- that was what I was saying in my post.

If I had lied to my parents about having a job at Universal Studios for years and then LOST my child and then found myself standing in a hallway at Universal Studios where police officers said essentially, "the jig is up, you don't work here and we've talked to everyone you know. All your friends know you're a liar. Your parents know you're a liar. We know you're a liar. Will you sit down and talk to us..." I would definitely feel trapped. She doesn't have a car and LE told her specifically and repeatedly that they'd brought everyone she knows into the loop about her lies-- that they'd even gone so far as to talk to people she hadn't named. Who's she going to call for a ride?

I'm not advocating for Casey Anthony, but I definitely think there's a solid argument to be made here. I think Baez will say LE gave the appearance she was free to leave, but tried to psychologically railroad her.

 

[TxLady2]

Every state has their own procedure for miranda rights and what the court considers proper notification. They took her to a place she was familiar with, around people she supposedly knew, there were people just outside the door, there were phones she could use to call for a ride. They put her on tape and said the door is unlocked, you are NOT being detained, we would LIKE to clarify a few things, is that okay.... she said yes. Anyone in that case has chosen to willingly talk and couldn't get their statements thrown out.

When they leave a note on your door and ask you to call you can decline. When they ask you to come in and chat, you can decline.

In one of the statements taken in the 400 pages, actually two if I recall correctly, they are in a car, the officer states on tape we are in a car located at, the doors are unlocked, you are not being detained, you are freely choosing to speak to me, is that correct? That is obviously the standard in Fl.

I agree, Impatient... she clearly knew she was not under arrest at that point, and that the interview was being recorded.
I'm not an expert on law, but my son is in LE and I have learned a lot from him. I will ask him about what the laws are here, they might be a little different, but I think you are correct.

Edited to add: I would think detectives have enough experience to know that they have to Mirandize someone at the time they arrest them, but if she agreed to the questioning, without a lawyer present, and they made it clear she was NOT in custody... then the defense has no argument.

 

[impatientredhead]

Miranda is a Constitutional issue. If each state had a different standard, the Supreme Court would have to be open 24-7. LE in every state have to Mirandize those in custodial interrogation. If I'm "interviewed" in Florida, Oregon or New Jersey, I have the same Miranda rights. Miranda violations are determined on a case-by-case basis, evaluating specific circumstances and interpersonal dynamics-- that was what I was saying in my post.

If I had lied to my parents about having a job at Universal Studios for years and then LOST my child and then found myself standing in a hallway at Universal Studios where police officers said essentially, "the jig is up, you don't work here and we've talked to everyone you know. All your friends know you're a liar. Your parents know you're a liar. We know you're a liar. Will you sit down and talk to us..." I would definitely feel trapped. She doesn't have a car and LE told her specifically and repeatedly that they'd brought everyone she knows into the loop about her lies-- that they'd even gone so far as to talk to people she hadn't named. Who's she going to call for a ride?

I'm not advocating for Casey Anthony, but I definitely think there's a solid argument to be made here. I think Baez will say LE gave the appearance she was free to leave, but tried to psychologically railroad her.

It is constitutional but each state has their own way they want the officers stating it. You can find it on several links including the one I already provided. For example California and Texas include information that if you are not a citizen you have the right to contact the consulant. Washington state requires the officer to ask "being aware of these rights do you choose to speak to me", another state requires the officer to say that if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided when/and/if you get to court. In Fl clearly they want the officer to tape it and to state that they are not detained or locked into an area since we have heard it three times. Other states require it to be on tape and the suspect to answer each line with "I understand that I have the right to remain silent, I understand what I say can be used against me, I understand I have the right to an attorney".

It is not the officers job to see if you have a ride, though they didn't say they wouldn't take her home if she didn't want to talk. They have fulfilled their duty by telling you are detained. They are not under obligation to ask you repeatedly, to spoonfeed you your options, or make sure you don't FEEL trapped. Not feeling pressured, trapped, or under suspicion is not one of your miranda rights.

You have the obligation to ask questions if you are not clear or to suffer the consequences if you think you are smart enough to be questioned without an attorney. LE is fully within their rights in this situation, I don't see them being on thin ice at all.

 

[nancy botwin]

It is constitutional but each state has their own way they want the officers stating it. You can find it on several links including the one I already provided. For example California and Texas include information that if you are not a citizen you have the right to contact the consulant. Washington state requires the officer to ask "being aware of these rights do you choose to speak to me", another state requires the officer to say that if you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided when/and/if you get to court. In Fl clearly they want the officer to tape it and to state that they are not detained or locked into an area since we have heard it three times. Other states require it to be on tape and the suspect to answer each line with "I understand that I have the right to remain silent, I understand what I say can be used against me, I understand I have the right to an attorney".

It is not the officers job to see if you have a ride, though they didn't say they wouldn't take her home if she didn't want to talk. They have fulfilled their duty by telling you are detained. They are not under obligation to ask you repeatedly, to spoonfeed you your options, or make sure you don't FEEL trapped. Not feeling pressured, trapped, or under suspicion is not one of your miranda rights.

You have the obligation to ask questions if you are not clear or to suffer the consequences if you think you are smart enough to be questioned without an attorney. LE is fully within their rights in this situation, I don't see them being on thin ice at all.

Ok ok-- I was getting confused because I generally agree with everything you've been writing but can't figure out why you seem to disagree with most of what I'm saying. I was unclear-- and we're coming from two different positions-- if this were an episode of Law & Order, you're the first half and I'm the second.
I'm thinking of the interview in terms of its admissibility in court. I definitely don't think LE were doing anything wrong or unethical. I also think it's absurd to even imagine a police officer should have to make sure Casey has a ride home. There are times, however, when LE does everything according to procedure, and the defense atty gets the evidence thrown out.

Different departments in different states do have their own way of conforming their practices to the spirit of Miranda. And the values and rights under Miranda, are the same in each state. Each officer is trained to observe the protocol used in their specific dept. when interrogating someone. Sometimes an officer observes protocol and the statements are still thrown out after they are evaluated by a court. Miranda is a rule which governs the admissibility of evidence and not police conduct. It's not the officer's job to make sure I don't FEEL trapped for some strange and unforeseeable reason. It is, however, the court's job to evaluate the situation and make sure I didn't feel trapped before allowing the evidence to be admitted against me at trial.

I was just looking at this from the vantage point of "what will Baez argue?" to try to get this thrown out of evidence. And I think he will argue this was a de facto custody situation. I think he could possibly be successful, but only with the right kind of judge.

So that's what I think and I just wanted to clarify that I'm not arguing with you-- I just felt we were approaching this from different sides.

 

[icherish]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm

this will explain why they interupt her and some of the reasoning behind their actions, this isn't LE's first rodeom, they know what they are doing

Very informative stuff, thanks!

Despite her lies and the lack of emotion, listening to Casey respond on those interrogation tapes made me feel pretty sure it was unintentional.

And having learned more about interrogation tactics, I am even more sure.

On the tapes you can hear the detectives using specific tactics that can elicit certain responses from a suspect- leading at the very least to the direction of the truth, if not a full confession.

I picked up several clues in Casey's responses (not so much what she said but what she chose to respond to) that imply it was unintentional.

 

[Lady Loves Lurking]

It honestly offends me when people obstruct LE. Everyone talks smack about the police until they're cowering in their closet calling 9-1-1 and praying.


Great info here.

 

[ziggy]

The more I listen to those first interrogation tapes, the more disappointed in the officers I am.

For instance, they just can't seem to pin her down on some very easy inconsistencies like...

She claims to have all this information about Zanie, like where she lived, where her mother and sisters and brother live, her phone plans etc. Then later she says that she's kind of elusive and private about what she says about people and Casey eludes to looking back, with the privacy and the changing of the phone numbers, that might be kind of suspect.

Really, they should have called her on this.

It seems like they just lept into "what happened to Caylee" and I understand that, but I think trapping her in every single inconsistency is the only way to break a person like that down. Trust me, I've had to do it and it's not easy but they will make you chase your tail unless you do.

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm

this will explain why they interupt her and some of the reasoning behind their actions, this isn't LE's first rodeom, they know what they are doing

Great reading. This part especially got me.....If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.
Look how often in the jail videos we see her smoothing her hair.