How to behave on a confrontation: legal advice

Sometimes during the preliminary investigation, obvious contradictions arise between the testimonies of the participants in criminal proceedings. In order to find out the truth, confrontations are usually held between previously interrogated persons. This investigative action has its own characteristics. The fact is that several people are participating in such an interrogation. Thus, it becomes possible to immediately resolve all contradictions that have arisen in order to determine the further course of the investigation. Those present must understand how to behave on a confrontation, so that, firstly, not to harm themselves, and, secondly, not to direct the investigation along the wrong path.

The essence of the procedure

Determining the truth is often very difficult. There are times when two participants in a process give completely different testimonies regarding one question. This can happen for various reasons:

1. Due to the frank error of one of them.
2. With a deliberate distortion of real facts. Moreover, there is a possibility that both interrogated people incorrectly describe the picture of what is happening.

It is in such cases that the confrontation is applied. On it, the investigator has the opportunity to ask the participants the same questions and, having found in their answers a contradiction or inconsistency with the testimony given earlier, try to find out its cause.

All those present must be warned in advance of such a procedure in order to decide how to behave in person. Someone might want to change their testimony. Although in a similar situation, this is undesirable. It is better to completely refuse to give any evidence than to invent something on the go.

Good to know

To determine in advance how to behave on a confrontation, you need to clearly understand how such a procedure should go. To do this, refer to the law. All issues related to confrontation are addressed in Art. 164 and Art. 192 Code of Criminal Procedure:

1. To begin with, it is worth noting that these actions should be carried out on the basis of the relevant decision of the investigator. And sometimes it even requires a court decision.
2. Such interrogation should take place during the daytime, except in urgent cases.
3. During a confrontation, a protocol is usually kept where information about everything that is happening is recorded.
4. At such an interrogation, the use of threats and various forms of violence against its participants is unacceptable. They must provide all information voluntarily, without feeling danger from the side of law enforcement officers or other interrogated persons.
5. If during the conversation it is planned to use various technical means, then all participants should be notified in advance.
6. During a confrontation, the investigator may disclose previous testimonies or present any material evidence.
7. During a conversation, interrogated persons may ask each other various questions.

Knowing all these subtleties, participants can pre-think and plan their behavior model.

Strict order

The simultaneous interrogation of several persons sometimes becomes the only opportunity for the investigator to find out the truth. To achieve the desired result, he needs to follow certain tactics when conducting a confrontation. Otherwise, the procedure may be completely useless. In addition, each of its participants must understand how to behave on a confrontation and clearly follow this position. Such a conversation usually begins with clarification of the fact of acquaintance of the interrogated persons and determination of their relationship.These people can be friends, relatives, or co-workers. In addition, it is very important to find out if there is hostility between them. Such information is crucial for evaluating their testimony. Further, the investigator should ask the participants questions related to a particular circumstance, and, after hearing the response of each of them, the information received should be recorded in the protocol. In this case, upon detection of any discrepancies, it becomes possible to immediately clarify all the nuances and find out the reason for the inconsistency. Only after this it is necessary to proceed to the following circumstance.

Witness participation

Evidence of the suspect's guilt is often supported by witness statements. But sometimes they describe the same situation in different ways. The task of the investigator is to find out the truth by determining which of the participants in the process is mistaken or deliberately misleads everyone.

A witness may attend such a conversation with his lawyer. This is not prohibited by law. Representing the interests of his client, he must explain in advance how to conduct a confrontation with a witness:

1. Do not be too picky about the procedure for calling for such an interrogation. Most often this is done by telephone. Do not demand to necessarily send a summons. Anyway, you will have to come up, and the investigator may have a negative or biased opinion on this witness.
2. It is necessary to immediately decide whether a lawyer will be present during such a conversation. Sometimes the presence of a defense counsel causes the investigator to doubt the citizen’s involvement in the event. It is possible that in such a situation he will have a desire to re-qualify the “witness” as a “suspect”.
3. When talking, it is necessary to behave calmly, without showing aggression to the participants in the procedure. During such an interrogation, different situations may arise. You need to try to keep yourself in control, to prevent foul language and any use of physical force.
4. It is better to think over several possible answers in advance. This will help to better navigate the conversation, depending on the testimony of the other side.
5. The witness has the right to ask questions himself. Sometimes this helps confirm his own testimony.

By observing these rules, a witness can count on a favorable outcome of an ongoing confrontation.

How to be a suspect?

For the suspect, confrontation is a real test, a kind of psychological battle with the participants in the process. Such an interrogation can have twofold consequences for him. On the one hand, for example, by exposing an unscrupulous witness, he gets the opportunity to prove his innocence. This will be the first step towards justifying it. On the other hand, circumstances may be in favor of the prosecution. Then the punishment will be inevitable.

To exclude the second option, you need to clearly understand how to behave on a confrontation with a suspect:

1. One must speak with confidence so that every phrase said is not in doubt. It is better to stand your ground if the opposing side has no worthwhile arguments.
2. It is only necessary to admit that it is impossible at the moment to deny.
3. Sometimes it’s worth trying to play by the rules of the investigator: if he is aggressive, then it’s better to portray fear, and in an intimate conversation, try to portray understanding. This will partly help drag him to his side.
4. Refuse threats and any negativity. Such actions can only anger law enforcement officials.
5. The presence of a lawyer will help to avoid unnecessary mistakes.
6. If necessary, various applications can be made, requiring them to be entered in the minutes.

In addition, we must remember that the suspicion of a crime is not a final charge. During a confrontation, circumstances may emerge that will help the “suspect” prove in practice to everyone that he is right.

Victim action

The victim, like no one else, is interested in the outcome of the case. He needs the person who committed the crime to be punished. If during the trial any questions arose, then it is the victim who must do everything to find out. Of course, he wants to punish the offender. But for this you need to act strictly according to the law. How to conduct a confrontation with a victim? Usually the investigator appoints her in order to clarify some dubious points that are presented differently by both parties.

In such a situation, the victim must:

1. Very frankly answer questions regarding the specific circumstances of this case. Do not invent or conceive something. In this case, the investigator is not interested in assumptions. He needs only facts, and truthful ones.
2. Do not insult your opponent. You need to prove your point of view calmly. Excessive aggression and restraint can negatively set the investigator.
3. It is advisable to confirm your words with facts, because we are talking about a specific moment.
4. Sometimes it's worth a lawyer. He will skillfully help confirm the failure of suspicions and bring liars to clean water.
5. Sometimes the inconsistency in the testimony is caused by outright misconceptions of the victim himself. Not knowing the true picture, he is often inclined to express his assumptions about the event. Any lawyer will advise him in such a situation to say only what is initially beyond doubt.

The victim must take these points into account in order not to mislead the investigation.

Investigator behavior

Usually a confrontation is an investigator’s initiative. It is he who makes the decision about its necessity. After all, the result of such a procedure is unpredictable. It can eliminate the contradictions that have arisen or, conversely, expose the staging of a crime, a false alibi or confirm the fact of a reservation. At such an event, the investigator should first of all know how to behave properly in a confrontation.

He should try to comply with the following rules:

1. Correctly inform about the upcoming event of all participants and monitor the presence of each of them.
2. To warn the interrogated persons of the responsibility that they will bear in case of refusal to testify. Separately, attention must be paid to the provision of knowingly false information on their part.
3. During the conversation, all questions of interest should be asked gradually, providing an opportunity for each participant to give their own answer to them. After that, you can move on to the next moment.
4. Do not use obvious aggression or physical force in relation to the interrogated persons. The investigator should not intimidate or try to somehow influence their decisions.
5. Skillfully applying material evidence, try to find out how things really were.
6. Do not play along with one of the parties, misleading the other. Although in some cases it is possible to use measures of psychological influence on the one who provides deliberately false information.
7. Allow the interrogated persons to ask each other questions to find out the cause of the contradictions that have arisen.

Skillfully conducted confrontation always leads to the desired result. The main goal of the investigator should be to clarify the truth, which will subsequently punish the perpetrator.

Advice for a lawyer

Any participant in the proceedings during a confrontation may invite his lawyer. This will allow him to feel more confident during such a procedure. The role of the defense attorney will be to comply with the rule of law in relation to his client. How to behave in front of a lawyer?

Experienced advocates on this subject can provide some useful tips:

1. First you need to remember that the investigator is not a friend to a lawyer in such a situation. They have completely opposite goals.The investigator needs to know as much as possible. The defender's goal is to provide the minimum amount of necessary information.
2. During a confrontation, it is necessary to ensure that the interests of the client are not infringed. It is necessary in time to give him advice on the legitimacy of certain issues.
3. Carefully familiarize yourself with all the documents that appear during the procedure. Perhaps in one of these papers lies a catch.
4. Stop any negative impact on the client. In an emergency, you can simply end the conversation. At the same time, the lawyer himself must remain calm and restrain his emotions.
5. Submit applications on behalf of your client that will help turn the situation in his favor.

The correct actions of a lawyer can provide the client with all possible assistance without prejudice to his interests.