Interrogation and the Minority Suspect: Pathways to True and False Confession

Abstract

Eddie Torbio-Ruiz was asked to come to the police station in Reno, Nevada, voluntarily, to discuss allegations that he had sexually molested his girlfriend's two underage granddaughters. Although Eddie's native language was Spanish and he spoke English poorly, he was interrogated by English-speaking Detective Curtis Lampert. After asking a series of background questions, Lampert began an accusatory interrogation designed to cause Eddie to admit to the accusations against him. Throughout the interrogation, Lampert spoke faster than even native English speakers would understand easily. Though Eddie appeared superfi cially to understand Lampert, his problems with understanding became clearer as the interrogation progressed.Eddie initially denied all allegations, but Detective Lampert was a master interrogator who very cleverly enacted strategies interrogation scholars have shown to promote both true and false confessions. As Lampert used these strategies to move Eddie from denial to admission, Eddie appeared to admit to sexually abusive behaviors with the girls. But at several points he answered "yes" to questions or assertions that he had committed specifi c actions toward the girls, only to answer with a vehement "Oh, no!" when asked the very same question only a short time later. At many points in the interrogation, it was diffi cult to clearly infer that he knew what he had been asked, what he was responding to, or whether he and Detective Lampert were talking about the same things. Perhaps the clearest indicator of Eddie's misunderstanding came after he had been charged. When his attorney, Jennifer Lunt, tried to tell him the implications of his confession, Eddie denied that

Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research

“…Psychological research has demonstrated that the credibility of members of minority groups can be disadvantaged in comparison with that of their majority counterparts, even when the minority witnesses and suspects speak the same language as their interrogators, and the police interview is conducted in English (Villalobos & Davis, 2016). This bias can arise for various reasons.…”

Everyone has the right to understand: Teaching legal rights to ESL students

“…Since the order was signed, federal and state agencies that provide direct public services have articulated language access plans with training, monitoring, and outreach components; translated vital documents and forms into commonly spoken languages; hired bilingual staff members; and increased their reliance on professional interpreters. Nevertheless, researchers continue to document linguistic inequalities in the criminal justice system, where people with limited English proficiency, like Natasha, are taken advantage of (Berk‐Seligson, 2009; Pavlenko, 2008; Villalobos & Davis, 2016; Wallace & Hernandez, 2017).…”

“…The Court Interpreters Act of 1978 mandates the provision of an interpreter in court, but there is no equivalent law for investigative interviews. In many states, the right to an interpreter does not extend to custodial interrogations and people with limited English proficiency are interviewed without an interpreter (Villalobos & Davis, 2016). In the absence of an interpreter, L2 speakers may not understand their rights and the consequences of waiving them (all the more so when investigators speak faster on purpose).…”

“…In our experience, firsthand exposure to the courtroom deepens students’ understanding of the criminal justice system and allows teachers to discuss the many factors that influence verdicts and sentencing, including pervasive cultural stereotypes that link Muslims with terrorism and immigrants and minorities with street gangs, crime, and violence (cf. Villalobos & Davis, 2016). To raise students’ awareness of racial disparities in sentencing, incarceration, and wrongful convictions in the United States (Aim 4), we recommend the TED Talk “We Need to Talk About an Injustice” by prominent African American lawyer Bryan Stevenson (2012), screenings of documentaries (e.g., Lene Berg’s False Belief [2019], The Innocence Files [2020] on Netflix) and movies like Just Mercy (2020) based on Stevenson’s best‐selling book of the same title, and activities involving justice‐oriented websites, such as the Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org) and Amnesty International (ww.amnesty.org).…”

“…Natasha’s case is far from unique: Overviews of cases involving L2 speakers show that people with limited English proficiency are commonly interrogated without interpreters, and judges tend to find their Miranda waivers valid, even if they required an interpreter later on (Berk‐Seligson, 2009; Einesman, 2010; Villalobos & Davis, 2016). To address these concerns, a group of linguists, psychologists, lawyers, and interpreters in Australia, England and Wales, and the United States, convened by Aneta Pavlenko and Diana Eades, issued Guidelines for Communication of Rights to Non‐Native Speakers of English (Communication of Rights Group, 2015).…”