Tunnel vision in a murder case: Telephone interaction between police detectives and the prime suspect

Abstract

The article analyzes an interactional form of tunnel vision or cognitive bias in a series of mundane police–suspect interactions. The data come from a murder case in which the suspect, later convicted and then released from prison with the help of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, frequently calls police detectives to inquire about his confiscated van. As he is operating in a context in which accusations are rarely made explicit, we highlight the suspect’s use of a complaint-denial device to tacitly claim innocence. The police respond by focusing on the complaint rather than the denial part of the device. The use of the complaint-denial device is compared to more formal inquiries in which accusations are overt. We discuss the implications of a sociological understanding of cognitive bias – how it may operate in practices of talk and social interaction during informal encounters – for other criminal justice settings.

Keywords

Accusations conversation analysis denials discourse analysis interaction legal settings narrative analysis police–suspect encounter tunnel vision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atkinson

Drew

(1979) Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Atkinson

Heritage

(1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown

Levinson

(1978) Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Goody

(ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–311.

Carter

(2011) Analysing Police Interviews. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Cummings

(2010) Can an ethical person be an ethical prosecutor? A social cognitive approach to systemic reform. Cardozo Law Review 31(6): 2139–2159.

Davidson

(1984) Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: Atkinson

Heritage

(eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–128.

Drew

(1992) Contested evidence in a courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In: Drew

Heritage

(eds) Talk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–520.

Drew

(1998) Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3–4): 295–325.

Drew

Holt

(1988) Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35(4): 398–417.

10.

Edwards

(2006) Facts, norms and dispositions: Practical uses of the modal verb would in police interrogations. Discourse Studies 8(4): 475–501.

11.

Ervin-Tripp

(1976) ‘Is Sybil there?’ The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5: 25–67.

12.

Findley

Scott

(2006) The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Wisconsin Law Review 291: 291–397.

13.

Findley

Byl

Delaney

M, et al.

(n.d.) Brief and appendix of defendant-appellant. State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals District III, Case no. 02-3097-CR. Available at: https://media.law.wisc.edu/s/c_37/y5ntk/zimmermanbrief.pdf

14.

Fitzmaurice

Pease

(1986) The Psychology of Judicial Sentencing. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

15.

Fox Tree

Schrock

(2002) Basic meanings of You Know and I Mean. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 727–747.

16.

Garcia

(1991) Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review 56(6): 818–835.

17.

Garfinkel

(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

18.

Garrett

(2011) Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Goffman

(1983) The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48: 1–17.

20.

Greatbatch

Dingwall

(1997) Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions. American Sociological Review 62(1): 151–170.

21.

Gudjonsson

(1994) Investigative interviewing: Recent developments and some fundamental issues. International Review of Psychiatry 6: 237–245.

22.

Heritage

(1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson

Heritage

(eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.

23.

Heritage

(1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

24.

Heritage

(2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In: Stivers

Mondada

Steensig

(eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–183.

25.

Heritage

Clayman

(2010) Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

26.

Inbau

Reid

Buckley

. (2013) Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 5th edn. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

27.

Jefferson

(1981) The abominable ‘Ne?’: A working paper exploring the phenomenon of post-response pursuit of response (Occasional Paper No 6). Manchester: Department of Sociology, University of Manchester.

28.

Jefferson

(1988) On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4): 418–441.

29.

Kassin

(2005) On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? The American Psychologist 60(3): 215–228.

30.

Kidwell

Martinez

(2010) ‘Let me tell you about myself ’: A method for suppressing subject talk in a ‘soft accusation’ interrogation. Discourse Studies 12(1): 65–89.

31.

Komter

(1994) Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse & Society 5(2): 165–187.

32.

Komter

(2003) The interactional dynamics of eliciting a confession in a Dutch police interrogation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36: 433–470.

33.

Leo

(1994) Police interrogation and social control. Social & Legal Studies 3: 93–120.

34.

Leo

(1996) Miranda’s revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law & Society Review 30(2): 259–288.

35.

Leo

(2008) Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Lynch

(1982) Closure and disclosure in pre-trial argument. Human Studies 5: 285–318.

37.

Manzo

(1993) Jurors’ narratives of personal experience in deliberation talk. Text 13: 267–290.

38.

Manzo

(1995) ‘You wouldn’t take a seven-year-old and ask him all these questions’: Jurors’ use of practical reasoning in supporting their arguments. Law & Social Inquiry 19: 601–626.

39.

Manzo

(1996) Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury deliberations. Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 107–125.

40.

Martin

(2001) Lessons about justice from the ‘laboratory’ of wrongful convictions: Tunnel vision, the construction of guilt and informer evidence. UMKC Law Review 70: 847–848.

41.

Matoesian

(1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Maynard

(1984) Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum Publishers.

43.

Maynard

(2003) Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

44.

Maynard

(2013) Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In: Sidnell

Stivers

(eds) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 11–31.

45.

Maynard

Manzo

(1993) On the sociology of justice: Theoretical notes from an actual jury deliberation. Sociological Theory 11: 171–193.

46.

Medwed

(2004) The zeal deal: Prosecutorial resistance to post-conviction claims of innocence. Boston University Law Review 125: 125–183.

47.

Meehan

(1986) Record-keeping practices in the policing of juveniles. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 15(1): 70–102.

48.

Nisbett

Ross

(1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

49.

Ofshe

Leo

(1997) The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review 74: 981–1122.

50.

Ragin

(1992) Introduction: Cases of ‘what is a case?’. In: Ragin

Becker

(eds) What is a Case? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–18.

51.

Risinger

(2007) Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 97(3): 761–806.

52.

Sacks

(1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Button

Lee

JRE

(eds) Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.

53.

Sacks

Schegloff

Jefferson

(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.

54.

Schegloff

(1987) Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 101–114.

55.

Schegloff

(1988) Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In: Drew

Wootton

(eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–135.

56.

Schegloff

(2001) Getting serious: Joke→serious ‘no’. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1947–1955.

57.

Schegloff

(2005) On complainability. Social Problems 52: 449–476.

58.

Schegloff

(2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59.

Steinmetz

(2004) Odious comparisons: Incommensurability, the case study, and ‘small N’s’ in sociology. Sociological Theory 22(3): 371–400.

60.

Stokoe

Edwards

(2008) ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?’ Silly questions and their answers in police suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies 10(1): 89–111.

61.

Weinstein

(2003) Don’t believe everything you think: Cognitive bias in legal decision making. Clinical Law Review 9: 783–834.