From: jcs
Interrogations involve specific strategies and techniques used by detectives to elicit information and potentially confessions from suspects, while suspects often attempt to control the narrative.
Interrogation Process and Initial Strategy
Michael Dunn was subjected to interrogation 22 hours after a shooting incident, commencing at 4 PM [00:13:08]. Prior to questioning, he was read his Miranda rights, including the right to stop answering questions and consult with a lawyer [00:13:17].
At the outset, detectives consider the suspect’s likely mindset and the role they aim to portray [00:13:39]. In Dunn’s case, he sought to appear as a victim who had no other choice, aiming to seem rational, reasonable, and considerate [00:13:46]. Knowing someone had died, he felt the need to distort facts and perceptions [00:13:54].
Initially, detectives adopt a neutral stance to encourage the suspect to divulge as much information as possible before legal counsel is requested [00:15:38]. They may appear to agree with the suspect to encourage disclosure, as challenging them too early could lead them to shut down [00:15:56].
Escalation of Pressure
Once a baseline narrative is established, investigators gradually increase pressure [00:21:00]. This involves destabilizing the suspect’s thought process by inducing anxiety and setting traps for self-incrimination [00:21:05]. The goal is to make the suspect panic, leading to more calculated questions, but the approach must be subtle to avoid frightening them into silence or requesting a lawyer [00:21:12].
Detectives use several methods to challenge the suspect’s story:
- Challenging post-incident behavior: For example, questioning why Dunn ordered pizza instead of calling the police from his hotel room if he genuinely feared for his life [00:21:56]. This was contrasted with another case where a person immediately called 911 [00:23:09].
- Disproving claims with evidence: The absence of a weapon in the victim’s car was a major issue for Dunn’s self-defense claim [00:27:37].
- Highlighting inconsistencies: Dunn’s description of seeing a “shotgun” changed to a weak and unconvincing claim of seeing a “barrel” [00:23:54].
- Pointing out illogical actions: If Dunn truly believed the victims had a shotgun, why would he get out of his car, making himself an easier target [00:29:28]?
- Corroboration from other witnesses: Other occupants of the victim’s vehicle stated they did not threaten to kill Dunn, only exchanged insults [00:34:36]. Independent witnesses in the parking lot also did not corroborate Dunn’s claims of threats [00:36:54].
- Forensic evidence: Forensics refuted Dunn’s claim that the victim exited the truck, showing the victim was hit while still inside with the door shut [00:32:24].
- Victim’s background: The victim had no history of violence, making the death threat claim less credible [00:35:37].
Suspect Behavior During Interrogation
Dunn frequently reverted to claiming he was in “fear for his life” and “reacted” instinctively [00:39:59]. He attempted to justify his actions by stating he was “scared” and did not “have time to think” [00:45:05]. He also tried to appear appealing by showing emotion when discussing his fiancee and dog, implying selflessness and nobility, but showed no emotion when describing taking a life [00:52:56].
His claims were undermined by inconsistencies, such as his fiancee stating he never mentioned seeing a gun or weapon of any kind on the night of the incident or the following morning [00:55:15].
Outcome
Michael Dunn was found guilty on three counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to 90 years [00:56:20]. Seven months later, he received an additional life sentence without parole [00:56:29]. The jury had access to his interrogation, where his initial responses contradicted his later, more forcefully delivered testimony prepared with his lawyer [00:48:51].