Class Notes (974,047)
CA (573,725)
Conestoga (17)
ECE1065 (5)
Conestoga (5)
Lecture 1

ECE 1065 Lecture 1: Course Notes Investigation & Evidence

by OneClass858942 , Fall 2015
23 Pages
Fall 2015

Health and Life Sciences
Course Code

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 23 pages of the document.
Evaluating Witness Credibility: Deception (Chapter 14)
 !
  
% """""
% """"""""!""
% """&
'(()* "+""
," " "!
," !""""""
-#.#/#- 0."0/"
#1" "23""#
)#1!"" "2/"" 
$#1" 2
5"!  6 
/"" "" 8
# 9"":" !
#  """ !
' 
 "%
*3!"%+ <7
find more resources at
find more resources at
,< <
!0 
1!" "0""!
/"% 
# .
# 3
)# .""
$# '7
@# 4&"""3!"%
# .! 
>. ,<,!
# .
# -
)# 1"
$# 3 -"%"
''#A   "
/ 
find more resources at
find more resources at
# "  !#
# "!"=""#
)# "!!""#
$# "" "#
@# ""!#
3# %""
# 4
%# B3""
# 3""
,# 51"
C >"8
# !"!="" " &
# 3>%7" !
)# >"4""
$# 9" " "="" "
! "0"
@# %"0
# C""*>"+*! +""!
""!"" "
/ "!""""" 
,!% 
# D4"8
 !"% #
""":"E "!#
 "-#
/"" "" 8
# 9"":" !
find more resources at
find more resources at

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Week 2 (January 11, 2016) Evaluating Witness Credibility: Deception (Chapter 14) Deception  lying or with holding information  Big problem when they are not giving all of the information  When people intentionally lie to you, they can be charged with public mischief (cc sec. 140) Credibility  honestly, trustworthiness, no reason to lie  Credibility of witnesses is assessed during the investigation phase  Credibility is tested again during court proceedings in front of the judge and jury Marguart (1993)  “credibility is an opinion” as the court said Establishing credibility in policing is very challenging  Emotions may be deceiving , focus of the analysis of the facts in issue R.F.T. (Reliable/ Foundations/ Test) 1. Has the theory been tested? After someone has created it. 2. Peer review 3. Have standards been set? (There are no standards for credibility) 4. Has the theory been accepted? None of these have been completed for credibility; therefore determining credibility is not scientific. Two types of opinions about witness credibility: 1. Strong (witness’s report believed) 2. Weak (or no credibility)(witnesses report not believed Why do witnesses withhold evidence?  Self-incrimination  May be afraid of the offender  Do not want to go to court/ miss work  Do not like public speaking (Court)  They do not want to look stupid (during cross examination)  They do not get paid  They like the person who had committed the crime How do we convince witnesses to disclose information? “Adversarial Contact”  had a bad experience with an officer Example  a teen ager had a bad experience with the police and now do not like them, therefore they will not give information/ will not help due to the bad experience with an officer An Honest Witness  Have no complaints because he/she is there voluntarily  Does not avoid answering questions/ give explanations  If they do not know the answer they tell you that they do not know  Honest people do not give vague answers, they give specific answers  Does not hesitate when providing an answer “Internal Conflict”  when a witness lies he experiences internal conflict You may not continue an interview when a witness turns into a suspect  When this happens you must caution them  Tell them why they are under arrest ( Charter 10 (b)) Slide Show Witness Deception Intentionally Withholding Evidence Reasons: 1. Fear of offender 2. Attempt to conceal own wrongdoing 3. Financial loss 4. Moral deficiency 5. Poor opinion of police or the justice system (Adversarial Contact) 6. Favorable attitude toward the offender Intentionally Fabricating or Exaggerating Evidence Reasons: 1. Financial gain 2. Retaliation 3. Hostility toward offender 4. Attention (Jonbennett Ramsey Case)  Man Mr. Karr lied about being with Jonbennett when she died, got a free plane ride home from Thailand to be found not guilty) Honest Person Profile: 1. Does not complain or get annoyed about being interviewed. 2. Does not avoid answering questions. 3. Does not give vague answers. 4. Does not hesitate a lot before answering. 5. Does not try to rush the interview. Honest Person Profile Characteristics: A. Calmness B. Patience C. Logical Answers D. Direct Answers E. No Hesitation The 10 Point List  first 4 are positive indicators the last 6 are deceptive indicators Verbal Indicators of Deception: 1. Diversion  divert or dodge questions by changing the subject 2. Anger  Internal Conflict within the person being interviewed, when individuals lie they get angry having to cover lies with lies 3. Insincere Politeness 4. Sudden silence  taking breaks before answering questions because they have to think about what they are going to say / when people lie this generally happens 5. Contrasting conduct  comparing the conduct/ attitude in two different situations giving you indicators 6. Vague, illogical answers  “I think so” “it could have been” this is a vague answer and does not give you anything, it shows doubt in the answer  These indicators are not conclusive proof of deception.  They are general observations that should cause suspicion about the witness’s truthfulness. Evaluating Credibility Informal Procedure: 1. General Principles: a) Do not give immediate strong Credibility. b) Determine if any factors affected the witness’s Observation. c) Determine if any factors affected Recall. Two types of opinions about witness credibility: 1. Strong (witness’s report believed) 2. Weak or no credibility (witness’s report not believed) Ten Point List: Positive Factors: 1. Acquisition position  was the person actually there, and did they have a good view of the situation 2. Intent to Learn  (i) anticipate that something is going to happen (ii) focus before the incident 3. Duration of Observation  how long did they observe “15 seconds at 8 ft” is no good, must be better than that (Reitsma Case 1998) 4. Retention Period  time from observation to interview/ recalling stage Negative Factors: 5. Interference with mental repetition  something interferes with your memory after incident occured 6. Sensory Problems  reaction time, hearing, vision, etc. 7. Alcohol or drug consumption  important to determine before court 8. Excessive Stress  should not be able to give great detail, only weapon 9. Motive to Lie  is the witness trying to cover something up or get someone in trouble? 10. Conformity Kyle YOUNG  death of 16 year old boy (Conformity case with special constables) Week 3 (January 20, 2016) Informants Informant  a individual who provides confidential information to the police and receives a pay check for the information.  Informants are generally criminals giving information about crime that is happening or is going to happen Informant statements may not be used in court. Informants are used to infiltrate: 1. Organized Crime 2. Terrorism (Toronto 18) 3. F.L.Q John Gotti  His second in command “Sammy the ball” became an informant and got immunity for all of the killings he did for the mafia. Sammy served 5 years for small crimes. He was then released and opened up a restaurant in Arizona. Sammy got 20 years later on in life for running an ecstasy business out of the restaurant. Types of Informants: Eye Witness Informant  witnesses the entire crime. Corroborating informant  informants that support the main evidence Covert Informant  informants that work undercover; may already be a part of the organization/ group that they are giving information about. Innocence at stake (IAS)  when someone’s innocence is jeopardized the judge may force the crown/ police to disclose the name of the informant. When a wrongful conviction is about to happen, the judge will force the police to give the identity of an informant to ask him questions so that an innocent person will not be convicted. Slideshow Informants:  Snitch  Tipster  Stool  Stool pigeon  Rat  Canary Fink  Stoolie Informant: a witness who provides confidential evidence to the police and whom the police choose not to compel to court.  “Confidential informants” play a very important role in criminal investigations. Classification of informants: 1. Eyewitnesses 2. Corroborative witness/ informants 3. Hearsay witnesses/ informants 4. Covert Informant Covert Informants  Report information to police about a Terrorist or other Criminal Organization  Known as “Moles”.  A spin-off from military intelligence.  Carole de Vault a member of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ)  Police avoided disclosing her identity until the day she appeared in court as a witness. Informants: Carole de Vault  In 1970 de Vault was a twenty-five-year-old university student  She was a member of the Parti Quebecois  She was a Jacques Parizeau’s mistress  On 31 October 1970, she was recruited into the FLQ  November 1970 she became an informer and was given the number “945- 171” and the code name “Poupette” Facts:  Informants are a traditional starting point in seeking Basic Leads. (Look at beam of suspicion)  Informants generally wish to remain Anonymous.  At any given time, just the DEA maintains around 4,000 informants. William Webster FBI:  “The informant is the single most important tool in Law Enforcement.” Utilizing the Informant:  The informant can be used in a number of ways:  Make Observations in areas where strangers would be suspect  Furnish Information from a source not readily available to the investigator.  Conduct “Controlled” undercover transactions.  Introduce undercover agents to criminal suspects.  Collect Intelligence information.  Infiltrate criminal organizations. Informants: Salvatore Gravano, “Sammy the Bull” Informants: Mubin Shaikh  The Toronto 18  Initially paid $77,000  Second payment $300,000  Asked for an additional 2.4 million  Drug user (cocaine)  Plead guilty to “Threatening” two 12 year old girls  Declared “Hostile witness” by the prosecution Informants: Shaher Elsohemy  The Toronto 18 case  Asked for 15 million  Got 4.1 million Fixed Costs Included:  Up to $40,000 for dental work for his wife  $100,000 for his two cars  $75,000 for his parents’ cars  $40,000 for his parents’ debts.  $30,000 for his youngest brother’s car  $100,000 for his older brother’s debts.  $30,000 for his older brother’s car  $900,000 for his home  $300,000 for his parents’ home  Up to $750,000 for the loss of his business  $100,000 for “start-up” including furniture  Once flew to Poland just to eat “Duck”! Utilizing an informant: Problems: 1. Control of the informant 2. Possible embarrassment to the law enforcement agency 3. The informants questionable credibility in court Evaluating the informants credibility: 1. Determine the informants motive 2. Use the 10 point list Informant’s motives and credibility 1. Fear  scared someone will hurt him  Fears he may go to prison for something 2. Bargaining  plea bargain (wanting a lesser sentence) 3. Need to express his knowledge of criminal activity going on 4. Eliminate competition or accomplices  example = other gangs/ drug dealers 5. Morals  disagrees with some types of criminal activity 6. Playing cop  person suffers from police syndrome (wanted to be a cop) and thinks they are apart of the force “when are WE making the bust??” 7. Financial reward 8. Combination  between 2 or more of the above Never permit an informant to remain undetected for crimes proven to have been committed by him as a bargain for information received Maintaining control of the informant:  The investigator who develops the informant is the one who is assigned to him/her  The investigator commands and controls the investigation, NOT the informant  Investigators must not promise anything that they cannot deliver Example money, reduced charge, relocation of their family, police protection Week 4 (January 26, 2016) Interrogation Admission  admits one of more facts in issue Confession  admits all facts in issue Primary facts in issue  Timings (Date and time)  Place  Identity Secondary facts in issue  Proving the criminal offence When given a confession, it is important to determine if it is given to a person in authority. POA  a person who they believe may influence the outcome of the case Undercover police officers are not persons in authority 3 different classes of people who are considered POA’s  Peace officer  Social workers  Correctional officers 1914  Ibrahim ruling, case determined that voluntariness needs to be proven 1967/ 1969  exculpatory statements (must have an operating mind) 2000  what happens when people give false statements? (Reliability) Best way to prove voluntariness  notebook Suspect  person who has not been charged Accused  person has been charged Statements from witnesses are inadmissible in court Statements from accused are admissible in court Inducements  The judge will be looking if there are any inducements when entering the voir dire  Inducement  violence, threat of violence, promises  Certain promises may made  plea bargain Slideshow Interrogation results:  Full confession 24%  Partial confession 18%  Incriminating statement 23%  No incriminating statement 36% Admission of confessions:  Admission  partial acknowledgement of a suspects involvement in the crime that might prove one or more (But not all) of the facts in issue Example “I was there but I didn’t do it.”  Confession  is acknowledgement of the suspects involvement that proves all of the facts in issue Interview vs. Interrogation Interview:  Information gathering stage  Non accusatory  Not cautioned  No rights to counsel given  Open ended questions  Voluntariness not an issue  Interrogation:  Establish culpability of person  Accusatory in nature  Cautioned  Rights to counsel given  Leading questions  Voluntariness must be proven The Purpose of a Confession: Confessions Have The Strongest Evidentiary Value 1. Corroborates evidence 2. Establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt 3. Often only method of solving crime 4. Proves all Facts-in-Issue 5. Obtaining unrelated confessions 6. Not automatically admissible 7. Must be given by witness who heard it Interrogation objectives: Week 5 Most charter violations are from 8,9,10 24(2) is the most common charter violation Tell the person why they are under arrest  10(a) Give the person the caution  10(b) Right to counsel without delay  10(b) Base Bridges  Legal Aid  1. Temporary  2. Free  3. Immediate Bartle  the 1-800 number  Must give the person the number Privacy  privacy with lawyer  You are allowed to be alone with your lawyer Options for a person who has been given his rights to counsel 1. Waive the lawyer (I don’t need one) 2. Invocation  (I want to call my lawyer right now) 3. Exercise  (when I actually obtain legal advice) Judges Rules: [1912] U.K.  Are not legally sanctioned  If you do not follow the judges rules you will not necessarily lose the case, however the judges rules will help prove voluntariness  T.C.R. (Traditional confession rule) Ibrahim Case 1914 (Voir dire for POA’s) C.C.R.  must prove that the confession is credible PowerPoint Singh v. The Queen (2007 SCC)  April 2002, Jagrup SINGH (28) fired five shots through the open door of a strip club in BC  Rick LOF (30) a bystander was struck by bullet and killed  SINGH was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 13 years  SINGH appealed to the SCC insisting that his right to remain silent was violated SCC upheld his conviction on a 5-4 Justice Louis
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

You've reached the limit of 4 previews this month

Create an account for unlimited previews.

Already have an account?

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.