Use of Deception
- Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Any evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege.
- United States v. Davis , 6 M.J. 874 (A.C.M.R. 1979). After a proper waiver, deception is permissible in the interrogation process as long as the artifice is not likely to produce an untrue confession.
- United States v. Jones , 34 M.J. 899 (N.M.C.M.R. 1992). NIS agent falsely stated that co-accused had “fingered” the accused as the sole perpetrator. This misrepresentation, though relevant to a determination of voluntariness, does not render an otherwise voluntary statement involuntary.
- United States v. Thrower , 36 M.J. 613 (A.F.C.M.R. 1992). When accused continued to deny involvement in ATM card theft, another OSI agent was introduced as “Dr. Paul,” a psychologist/psychic with a special power to know when he was being told a lie by looking into his crystal ball. Accused eventually made admissions to “Dr. Paul.” The court considered the “cornball ruse” as nothing more than an adjuration to the accused to tell the truth and did not render confession involuntary.
- United States v. Sojfer , 47 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 1998). During an interrogation, the NCIS agent stated a proposition that he knew was false. In response, the accused corrected the agent with incriminating information. Applying a totality of the circumstance analysis, the CAAF denied the accused’s claim that the statement was involuntary, i.e., the product of “fraud and trickery.”