Attendees at the annual Honorable Ralph W. "Buddy" Nimmons Jr. Federal Practice Seminar on Thursday were trained on what to look for when witnesses aren't telling the truth.
Professor Mark Frank of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, was a keynote speaker with a presentation titled "Detecting Deception in the Courtroom."
Frank has received research funding from The National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of Defense to examine deception, aggression, and hidden emotion behaviors in checkpoint, law enforcement and counter-terrorism situations.
He has used the findings to lecture, consult and train most federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as local and state and select foreign agencies such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Australian Federal Police and Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom.
"There is no Pinocchio response. There is no one response that guarantees a person is telling a lie," said Frank.
Clues to deception do exist, but they are not easy to detect, said Frank.
He recommended learning how to read a person and his or her mannerisms.
"Some people like to use their hands and arms when they talk, while others aren't so expressive," said Frank.
Establishing a baseline of what is normal activity and what is not for a subject helps the person asking the question realize an out-of-character response, said Frank.
Also, a subject's body may contradict what they are saying.
Frank used a clip from an interview between New York Yankees player Alex Rodriguez and CBS correspondent Katie Couric.
"For the record, have you ever used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing substance?" asked Couric during the Dec. 17, 2007, interview.
"No," said Rodriguez, but when he said no, his head bobbed down in the same manner as a person saying "yes."
Shortly after the question, Rodriguez answered another question where he answered no, and his head moved from side to side in the same manner as a person saying "no."
Frank also provided lists of how the legal process both hinders and helps the ability to detect deceptions.
The legal process hinders detection of deceptions because:
• It provides extended rehearsal period.
"(Criminals) can practice their alibis and they may even begin to feel confident that they are telling the truth, in fact. This is where good questioning comes in. When people plan out a lie, they tend to plan it out a few inches deep. If you drill down far enough, you can undo it," said Frank.
• The delay of the legal process can blunt emotions.
• Yes or no answers can make it difficult to detect lies.
• Truthful witnesses can be nervous too.
• Medications.
"There are whole industries in California and some other places that know how to medicate defendants to make them look inscrutable," said Frank.
The legal process helps the detection of deceptions because:
• The status of the judge.
"The judge is viewed as the most impartial person in the room," said Frank.
• It is a high-stakes situation that can draw out hot spots or tells a change in behavior or demeanor.
"The fact that this is a high stakes scenario, it is going to engender emotions in people," said Frank.
• The process allows attorneys the ability to follow up with questions and "drill down."
@photojoe71
(904) 356-2466