Interrogation

The interrogation (obsolete: interrogation ; English interrogation ) is in the law of criminal procedure of law enforcement agencies conducted interviews of suspects , witnesses or experts in order to solve a Tatherganges or civil litigation by the court conducted interviews with plaintiffs , defendants , witnesses or experts to elucidate the facts .

General

In contrast to the hearing , the questioning of the witness does not serve to grant a fair hearing , but rather to determine the relevant facts through question and answer. In the context of the first questioning of the suspect ( Section 136 StPO), the requirements of which must also be observed by the police officers (Section 163a, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the questioned person is also granted a legal hearing. During his own interrogation, the accused is therefore both the legal subject (as the reason for the investigation) and the legal object (as evidence) of the proceedings, which creates a legal tension.

Are questioning one on legislation based method of gathering evidence and guided by tactical reasons communication in order to obtain as possible to the truth of appropriate statements (see. Legality principle ). In this context, it is very often necessary to question an accused , victim or witness by law enforcement officials in criminal proceedings or in administrative offense proceedings as part of the first attack . The interrogation is not a “normal” legal act, but rather, as a communication process, is a special social act . Therefore, it is not only aimed at the exchange of information, but also serves to demonstrate the power and influence of the investigative bodies.

In jurisprudence , an interrogation is the questioning by an authority about an investigation or subject of proceedings. There is no legal definition . The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) understands a criminal interrogation to be “an interview that is carried out by an official of a criminal prosecution body in an official capacity with the aim of obtaining a statement”. This so-called “formal interrogation term” predominates in practice. Another, more accused-friendly view, on the other hand, includes interrogation that is aimed at eliciting information from the respondent so that, according to this view, even police officers who are not publicly investigating or undercover investigators can conduct an official interrogation ("functional" or "Material interrogation term"). This means that the necessary instructions must also be given for these cases .

The questioning of witnesses , experts as well as the accused (in administrative offense procedure law: affected ), accused or accused is a type of evidence gathering. Witnesses or experts can be obliged to testify under oath in court. Sworn and unofficial false statements are punishable in Germany. The judicial questioning of a persecuted person in connection with a request for extradition in accordance with Section 28 of the Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters represents a special situation.

This is not to be distinguished from sovereign, company-led, event-related investigations (so-called internal investigations) that are carried out by interviewing employees. Both the duty of employees to give evidence and the use of the knowledge gained from this in later criminal proceedings are controversial.

species

Every interrogation in preliminary proceedings consists of the parts “interrogation on the person ” ( Section 395 (2) ZPO) and “interrogation on the matter ” ( Section 396 (1) ZPO). The latter is voluntary in many countries of the world, as the accused have the right to refuse to testify and, according to the Roman law principle "Nobody is obliged to prosecute themselves" ( Latin nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ), they do not incriminate themselves and thereby possibly open an investigation have to risk. When questioning a person in Germany, information on identity such as family name, maiden name, first name, date of birth, place of birth, marital status, nationality, occupation and home address is mandatory ( Section 163b StPO ). A violation through false information or the refusal to provide this information is an administrative offense according to § 111 OWiG .

Legal issues

There are interrogations in criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and administrative offenses.

Criminal trial

In Germany, the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) applies to interrogations in penal and criminal procedure law , as a transformation provision for administrative offenses also the law on regulatory offenses (OWiG) and as a rule supplementary to authority also the European Convention on Human Rights . The statement during interrogations is later in the trial a testimony is and is criminal investigative approaches for resolving a case or other unsolved cases.

If the evidence of a fact is based on the perception of a person, this must be heard in the main hearing ( Section 250 StPO). The interrogation may not be replaced by reading out the minutes of an earlier interrogation or a statement. The accused does not need to be heard by the court before a penalty order is issued ( Section 407 (3) StPO).

Instruction

Instructions are to be given ex officio in the preliminary proceedings and in the main court hearing before the first interrogation by the police and the public prosecutor takes place ( Section 163a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). This means that the instructions provided for in Section 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are necessary at the first hearing in the preliminary investigation. The instruction must contain information that

• it is up to the accused to comment on the accusation or not the thing to testify,
• he may question a defense attorney at any time, even before an interrogation ,
• he can apply for individual evidence to be released,
• it is not possible to enforce self-incriminations due to criminal offenses or administrative offenses and therefore any statement may be refused.

Makes an accused of his right to remain silent use, this must not be at the evidence against him utilized are. According to the prevailing opinion, a partial silence can be used against him.

It was not until February 1992 that the BGH gave up its previous case law and now introduced a ban on the use of evidence , according to which the duty of instruction must be observed before an accused is questioned, because otherwise the accused's statements may not be used. As a result, any existing evidence may not be used in the proceedings without prior instruction.

At this point at the latest, the accused must be informed that he will find himself at the beginning of an investigation that is directed against himself, which can end in a charge ( Section 170 (1) stop). If the instructions are not given (or the police counterpart cannot understand them) about the right to freedom of expression and the consultation of defense lawyers, the testimony may be unusable for legal proceedings . If there is a ban on the use of evidence , the defendant who is represented by a lawyer (or who has been advised by the court of the possibility of an objection) must object to the use in the main hearing in good time, since otherwise the use of the objections is still possible in accordance with the appeal solution of the BGH . Furthermore, such an evidence gathering error can be cured by the so-called qualified instruction . Here, the accused must be informed that his previous statements cannot be used, instruction must be given and the accused can make a new statement knowing that they cannot be used.

The interrogated person may inspect files through legal counsel or defense counsel (Section 147 StPO, for the injured person Section 406e StPO) once the investigation has been concluded ( Section 169a stop). On request, the lawyer or legal adviser can inspect the files during the ongoing proceedings in order to get an idea of ​​the allegations and the prospect (evidence) and to be able to argue in the investigation or court proceedings.

Participants in the interrogation

The Code of Criminal Procedure contains provisions on when an accused is to be heard ( Section 115 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 163a (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 243 (2) and Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), by whom ( Section 163 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 163a Paragraph 3 StPO, Section 243 Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 5 StPO) and which rules must be observed (especially Section 136 Paragraph 1 StPO). The task of interrogation is carried out by the public prosecutor's office ( Section 163a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the police (Section 163a (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and judicial interrogation ( Section 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The accused does not have to obey a police summons , he has to appear at the public prosecutor's office and in court.

In addition to the accused, witnesses ( Section 48 StPO) and any experts ( Section 72 StPO) are also to be heard. According to Section 48 (1) StPO, witnesses have the duty to testify if there is no exception permitted by law (rights to refuse to testify pursuant to Section 52 ff. StPO, rights to refuse to provide information pursuant to Section 55 StPO). The witnesses are to be heard individually and in the absence of the witnesses to be heard later ( Section 58 StPO). For experts, the provisions on witnesses apply accordingly ( Section 72 StPO).

During the interrogation, the interrogator must work out the evidence-relevant offenses, investigate the perpetrator and participation, and identify the preparatory and completion acts. The interrogator can be made aware of contradictions in his statements, the perpetrator's knowledge can be queried or relationships with the victim can be discussed. The alibi can also be checked and questioned. If you have difficulty understanding, an interpreter should be called in to ensure a fair trial and a fair hearing . However, an examination of witnesses in court (on the person and the matter) and an examination of an accused / person concerned (only on the matter) is mandatory , except in the case of a right to refuse to testify or inability to be questioned.

Hearing of witnesses

Witness interrogations are interviews with witnesses about their perceptions and knowledge of the object of investigation. During the hearing of witnesses, questions about dishonorable facts, previous convictions or circumstances from the personal sphere of life of the witness or his relatives should only be asked if they are indispensable ( Section 68a StPO). The public can also be excluded to protect the privacy of the witness ( Section 171b Courts Constitution Act ). A comparison with other witnesses or with the accused in the preliminary proceedings is, however, permissible if it appears necessary for the further proceedings ( Section 58 (2) StPO).

For personal or professional reasons, certain witnesses have the right to refuse to testify or at least the right to refuse to provide information on certain questions ( Section 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relatives of the accused).

In an investigation , witnesses have the duty to appear at the summons of investigators to the public prosecutor's office and to give evidence on the matter if the summons is based on an order from the public prosecutor's office ( Section 163 (3) StPO, tasks of the police in the preliminary investigation).

Civil litigation

Pursuant to Section 395 (1) ZPO , the witness is admonished to tell the truth before the questioning and it is pointed out that he may have to swear his testimony in the cases provided for by law . The witness is then prompted to state what he knows about the subject of his interrogation in context ( Section 396 (1) ZPO). The court can also order an ex officio questioning of a party without an application by a party and regardless of the burden of proof pursuant to Section 448 ZPO . The interrogation of a party is to be ordered by means of a decision to take evidence ( Section 450 (1) ZPO).

Administrative offenses

A hearing of the person concerned is sufficient in the administrative offense procedure according to § 55 Abs. 1 OWiG , an interrogation is based on § 46 Abs. 1 OWiG. The person concerned may call in a defense counsel before being questioned ( Section 55 (2) OWiG). The interrogation of a witness, expert or other person concerned may be replaced by reading out records of an earlier interrogation as well as documents that contain a written statement from them ( Section 77a (1) OWiG). If the investigations of the administrative authority have not revealed that the person concerned has committed a criminal offense that can be prosecuted, the proceedings will be discontinued ( Section 46 (1) OWiG).

Other procedures

Investigative committees of the German Bundestag and the state parliaments can summon and question anyone involved or witness. The public can be excluded here. The Committee of Inquiry Act (PUAG) often refers to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure , e.g. B. § 23 , § 24 PUAG.

There are also different types of interrogations in administrative law , e.g. B. the affidavit of someone other than a party in accordance with Section 94 of the Tax Code . Before the suspension of compulsory military service in Germany in 2011, the interrogations of witnesses and experts to check the availability of a recognized conscientious objector in accordance with Section 20 of the Civil Service Act (ZDG) played a role.

Interrogation practice

Police interrogation, observed through a one-way mirror

The practice of interrogation is part of forensics . The interrogation serves to research the truth in accordance with Section 244 (2) StPO. The interrogation is usually divided into three parts. In the first part, the interviewee is given the opportunity to report coherently, after which he is asked questions. In the last part, accusations are made and otherwise an attempt is made to clarify contradictions between the statement and evidence and other statements. Interrogators trained in interrogation practice ask questions in the interrogation room in order to close their knowledge gaps and to determine the course of events . With a suggestive question, the questioner gives the impression that a circumstance as assumed in the question and not otherwise occurred. Leading questions are problematic if the respondent responds to the suggestion contained therein . His answer has probative value only in the so-called overhang answer, i.e. everything that goes beyond the specification of the suggestive question. A derivative action is not evidence , but by the prohibition to him underlying a mere Vernehmungsbehelf, document to use as evidence, not simply is not allowed. Interrogators can also make allegations as a tactical tool to provoke responses. You also observe the behavior ( facial expressions , gestures ) of the respondents. A cross-examination in accordance with Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only permitted if the witnesses and experts have been appointed by the public prosecutor or the defendant and if a defense attorney is involved in the hearing. The cross-examination begins with the questioning of the applicant and ends with the questioning by the other side; it excludes the application of Section 69 (1) StPO. In order for the cross-examination rather a is alternating interrogation and not American US with its shape comparable.

All kinds of surveys in administrative offense and criminal proceedings must be carried out separately from other parties involved (accused, witnesses) in order to obtain an independent and thus unmanipulated statement. In the event of contradicting statements by the accused, a joint hearing of the persons can lead to the determination of the truth. Interrogations should take place close to the time of the offense so that there are no gaps in memory and the result is available for further investigations.

A translator or sign language interpreter must be called in for accused persons who do not speak German or who are hearing or speech impaired ( Section 187 GVG, Section 163a (5) StPO). Many police stations have set up an interrogation room for interrogations , in which one can work undisturbed. In special cases, e.g. B. in the sexual abuse of children, interrogation play rooms with video recording are often kept. Some rooms, especially in North America, have a Venetian mirror so that the reactions of the interrogated can be observed undisturbed.

The term interrogation within the meaning of the StPO includes that the interrogator confronts the person providing information (i.e. the accused, the witness or the expert) in an official capacity and in this capacity demands information (a statement) from him. The right to informational self-determination is not violated by the hearing trap . According to this, a self- accusation of the accused against a private person who is used by the police to investigate (“listening trap”) can be used if the aim is to solve a criminal offense of considerable importance.

The typical interrogation situation is therefore forced communication . This means that it is openly revealed between the interrogator and the person concerned that they are not talking “on an equal footing”. Instead, the active interviewing lies primarily with the interrogator.

Prohibited Interrogation Methods

The freedom of will and self-determination of the accused or witness must not be impaired by prohibited methods of interrogation such as threats , torture , fatigue , physical intervention, the administration of mind-clouding agents, deception or hypnosis ( Section 136a , Section 69 (3) StPO). In any case, repeated visits to the home or work place , taking to an office or repeated telephone calls are permitted .

The threat of an impermissible measure and the promise of an advantage not provided for by law are expressly prohibited; Measures that would foreseeably impair the accused's memory or insight are also not permitted . Statements that have been made in violation of these prohibitions may not be used even if the accused consents to their use ( Section 136a StPO).

The use of lie detectors is not permitted in Germany as evidence in investigative and judicial proceedings and therefore they are not used anywhere. The conduct of the interview is incumbent on the officer of the investigating authority, so there is no right to speak at any time or an excessively long duration. In any case, the person concerned is free to express himself in writing (even afterwards, up to the start of the main hearing).

The aim of the interrogation on the part of the law enforcement authorities is the confession or at least indications that serve as investigative approaches. A special method of obtaining confessions is the Reid method . This technique combines communicative manipulation with findings from psychotherapy. Through different perspectives of the confrontation with the accusation (e.g. suggesting understanding, making accusations, etc.) the interrogated person is psychologically "soft boiled", whereby the verbal affirmation of the guilt of the perpetrator is the focus. With the help of this changing relationship between the interrogator and the interrogated person (through apparent "compassion" on the one hand and excessive reproach on the other hand), a denial of the alleged act should be avoided. Pre-formulated "alternative offenses", which are permanently presented to the questioned person, are intended to push them in a certain direction. Conducting a conversation of this kind contradicts the rights of the accused to the greatest possible extent and has the sole aim of deliberately deceiving the interrogated for the purpose of obtaining evidence. It is therefore - at least officially - condemned by the German police and, according to their statement, not applied.

In principle, the accused or the person concerned must have been questioned in accordance with Section 163a (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no later than the conclusion of the police investigation into the person and matter or at least the charge must have been opened (e.g. on the summons).

On the part of the state, any authorized, competent and serving public official whose task is the prosecution of criminal or administrative offenses may hear.

Utilization of statements after a change of status

If a person has been questioned as a witness and is later given the status of an accused or affected person, in practice the person will be instructed accordingly a) again and this consent is recorded in a file note, if approved, or b) reassessed; The same applies in the opposite sense. It is precisely at this point that there are numerous legal gray areas in practice, as the transition from witness to suspect and ultimately to the accused can be fluid. The discussion about the admissibility and usability of the information obtained from so-called “informational interviews” and “ spontaneous statements ” also revolves around this problem . The first should only be explorations (and not targeted investigations) so that the respondent does not have to be instructed. In the case of spontaneous statements (i.e. if the person concerned begins to admit a crime of his own free will and without cause), the official must point out as quickly as possible that the person making the statement runs the risk of exposing himself to suspicion of a crime and therefore not himself must continue to burden.

documentation

On the basis of an interview-like conversation, interrogations can be recorded in an interrogation transcript , both as running text and as a question-and-answer procedure. They are to be recorded in any case, whereby the verbatim protocol often used for this is classified as very error-prone due to the limited human powers of perception and memory. Interrogations can also be recorded in indirect speech.

However, in some police forces and jurisdictions it is also common practice, in suitable cases, for the accused or those affected to express themselves in writing without the presence of an interrogator. In other cases, the interrogation can - with consent - be recorded on audio media or recorded by the interrogator. This liquefies the conversation (because there is no need to pause for logging); there are also criminological information. The type of questioning and the type of record is incumbent on the examining officer within the scope of the freedom of design of the preliminary investigation.

In exceptional cases, interrogations can also be carried out by video conference ( Section 247a StPO). In special cases, an interrogation can also be videotaped . Interrogations are added to the investigation file. In the case of very stressful events of an injured party (ergo witness), a new hearing in court can be dispensed with if exhaustive interrogation results are available. These can then be incorporated into the decision by resolution, as if the interrogations had taken place in court.

Truthfulness

An accused or witness who lies in front of a court, the public prosecutor's office or the police can therefore be punished if he thereby constitutes a favored offense within the meaning of Section 257 of the Criminal Code , the pretense of a criminal act within the meaning of Section 145d of the Criminal Code or a false suspicion in According to § 164 StGB. However, this does not include statements that merely deny your own involvement in a crime, as long as other people are not accused. The possibility of denying one's own involvement in the crime arises from the principle of freedom from self-incrimination (so-called “nemo tenetur” principle). If the false testimony foreseeably leads to the arrest of a person for the witness or accused, he is guilty of deprivation of liberty ( Section 239 of the Criminal Code) through indirect perpetration ( Section 25, Paragraph I, 2nd alternative of the Criminal Code).

If a witness gives false testimony during an unofficial questioning in court, he is also liable to punish a false, unofficial testimony ( § 153 StGB) or in the case of swearing in the crime of perjury ( § 154 StGB). In the case of the swearing in, negligent false statements ( Section 163 StGB) are also punishable. The witness can also appear before the police for obstruction of punishment i. S. v. Make § 258 criminal offense.

In the case of the accused who testifies truthfully, this has an effect on the sentencing, especially if he thereby helps to clarify the crime, cf. Section 46 (2) StGB - Conduct after the act.

In the case of criminal offenses under the BtMG , a German court can refrain from punishing or mitigate the punishment if the accused has contributed to clarifying the act beyond his contribution or voluntarily reveals his knowledge to an office in good time that criminal offenses according to Section 29 Paragraph 3, Section 29a, Paragraph 1, Section 30, Paragraph 1, and Section 30a, Paragraph 1 of the BtMG, the planning of which he knows can still be prevented.

“Error is the greater enemy of truth than lies. The liar does not want to tell the truth, the erring one cannot, no matter how much he wants to tell the truth. The liar can be exposed with the help of the credibility criteria; Motivate the "half" liar to the truth with skillful interrogation techniques. In the case of an error, one can only consider possible sources of error and take them into account when evaluating the statement ”.

International

Switzerland

In Switzerland the interrogation is called "interrogation", whereby according to Art. 78 CH-StPO the statements of the parties, witnesses, informants and experts are continuously recorded and after the interrogation the interrogated person is read out or presented to him for reading. In accordance with Art. 142 CH-StPO, interrogations are carried out by the public prosecutor's office, the police, the criminal offense authorities and the courts. The Confederation and the cantons determine the extent to which employees of these authorities can conduct interviews. Art. 157 CH-StPO stipulates that the criminal authorities can bring the accused to an agreement at all stages of the criminal proceedings on the offenses they are accused of. According to Art. 158 CH-StPO, the police or the public prosecutor's office inform the accused at the beginning of the first interview in a language they understand, among other things, that preliminary proceedings have been initiated against them and which criminal offenses are the subject of the proceedings. According to Art. 163 CH-StPO, a person who is older than 15 years and who is capable of judging the subject of the questioning is capable of giving evidence. At the beginning of the first interrogation, the hearing authority asks the witnesses in accordance with Art. 177 CH-StPO about their relationships with the parties as well as about other circumstances that may be of importance for their credibility.

Austria

The Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure 1975 (ÖStPO) regulates the questioning from § 164 ÖStPO. Thereafter, the accused has the right to consult a defense attorney. If he makes use of this right, the questioning must be postponed until the defense attorney arrives, unless this would result in an unreasonable extension of the detention. The defense attorney may not take part in the interrogation himself in any way, but may direct questions to the accused and make statements after the interrogation or after thematically related sections. However, the accused may not consult the defense lawyer about answering individual questions. A defense counsel may only be called in if this appears to be absolutely necessary due to special circumstances in order to avert a significant risk to the investigation or impairment of evidence through immediate interrogation or other immediate investigations. In this case, an order from the public prosecutor's office or a written justification from the criminal police for this restriction must be served on the accused immediately or within 24 hours and, if possible, a sound or image recording must be made. During the interrogation, no promises or pretenses, threats or coercion may be used to induce the accused to confess or provide other information. The freedom of his will, as well as his memory and insight, may not be impaired by any measures or even interfering with his physical integrity. Questions put to the accused must be clear and understandable and must not be vague, ambiguous, or intrusive. Questions with which he is held up against circumstances that are only to be ascertained through his answer may only be asked if this is necessary to understand the context; Such questions and the answers given are to be recorded verbatim. Questions that treat a fact not admitted by the accused as already admitted are not permitted.

A special case is the adversarial interrogation of the accused or a witness according to § 165 ÖStPO , which has been permitted since 1993 . It can be considered if there is concern that the hearing in the main hearing will not be possible for factual or legal reasons (Section 165 (1) ÖStPO). This can be the case, for example, if a witness is domiciled in a distant country and cannot easily travel to the main hearing or suffers from a progressive serious illness. In order to spare the witness an encounter with the accused and other parties involved in the proceedings, for example for victims of sexual offenses or to prevent underage witnesses from being influenced, the judicial interrogation can be recorded on video and the other parties involved in a separate adjoining room. Any questions are passed on to the witness via the judge without personal contact with the person making the question. The adversarial interrogation takes place at the request of the public prosecutor in accordance with the provisions applicable to the main hearing. There is no unilateral interrogation by the prosecution authorities, but the public prosecutor, the accused, the victim, any private parties and their representatives can participate and ask questions and contradicting ( adversarial ) applications. The interrogation protocol as well as audio or video recordings of the interrogation can be read out or presented during the main hearing. In this respect, the adversarial interrogation constitutes an exception to the principle of orality and the immediacy of the taking of evidence .

United States

In the USA , the party is hearing ( English party witness testimony ) enforceable. The main examination ( English direct examination ) takes place by the attorney of the evidence leader, who first hears his own witnesses. Leading questions ( English leading questions ) are prohibited (Rule 611c Federal Rules of Evidence FRE), because they dictate the answers. The American cross-examination ( English cross examination ) to Rule 611b FRE has a highly confrontational character and serves to expose the illegal witness preparation and credibility to shake the opposing witnesses. Unlike the German cross-examination, the American cross-examination is a counter-examination, an element of the right of confrontation , which serves to establish the truth .

The use of banned in the United States expanded or enhanced interrogation methods ( English enhanced interrogation techniques ) as the waterboarding in the prison camps of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo is subject of much public criticism.

See also

• Good cop, bad cop at the police interrogation

literature

• Max Hermanutz, Sven Litzcke, Ottmar Kroll: Structured interrogation and credibility. Guideline. Richard Boorberg Verlag , Stuttgart / Munich, 4th edition 2018, ISBN 978-3-415-06255-9 .
• W. Burghard, HW Hamacher, H. Herold, H. Howorka, E. Kube, M. Schreiber, A. Stümper (eds.): Kriminalistik-Lexikon. (= Series of criminalistics, basics. Volume 20). Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 1996, ISBN 3-7832-0995-1 .
• Oliver Harry Gerson: The right to accuse - criminal procedural balance through communicative autonomy . de Gruyter, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-11-048980-4 , pp. 497-582.
• Luís Greco , Christian Caracas: Internal Investigations and Freedom from Self-incriminations. In: NStZ. 2015, p. 7 ff.
• Uwe Füllgrabe, F. Geerds: Criminology. Schmidt-Römhild Verlag, Lübeck 1980.
• R. Jaeger: Interrogation of burglars. In: Criminological Competence. Chapter 6, DSB 5, Schmidt-Römhild Verlag, Lübeck 2000.
• G. Krauthan: Basic psychological knowledge for police officers. Psychology Publishing Union, 1990.
• H. Meyer, K. Wolf: Criminalistic textbook for the police. Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur, Hilden 1994.
• G. Schäfer: Practice of criminal proceedings. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1992.
• U. Scheler, R. Haselow: Repetitorium Psychologie for the police. Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur , Hilden 1994.
• G. Shift: Burglary. In: W. Burghard, H.-W. Hamacher (Hrsg.): Instructional and study letters for criminalistics. No. 20, Verlag Deutsche Polizeiliteratur, Hilden 1996.
• H. Stolz, W. Treschel: Criminology for police practice, teaching and working materials for protection and criminal police. Publisher Hans-Rainer Strahlendorf, Berlin 1992.
• Axel Wendler, Helmut Hoffmann: Technique and tactics of questioning in court proceedings. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2009, ISBN 978-3-17-020446-1 .
• Ulrich Eisenberg: Special comment. Proof of the StPO. 7th edition. CH Becksche Verlagbuchhandlung, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-60972-5 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Verbehmung  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

• The principles of the "interrogation theory"
• Peter Kasiske: Police interrogation without a public defender instead of an immediate presentation to the judge. Discussion of the BGH, decision of October 20, 2014 - 5 StR 176/14 , HRRS February 2015

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Carl Creifelds , Legal Dictionary , 21st edition. 2014, p. 1445; ISBN 978-3-406-63871-8
2. ↑ Oliver Harry Gerson, The Right to Accusation , 2016, p. 497
3. ^ BGH, decision of May 13, 1996, Az .: GSSt 1/96 = BGHSt 42, 139 , 149
4. ↑ Luís Greco / Christian Caracas, NStZ 2015, p. 7 ff.
5. ↑ Wolfgang Lübke, Steuerfahndung , 2008, p. 68
6. ↑ BGHSt 20, 281
7. ↑ BGHSt 20, 298
8. ↑ BGH, decision of February 27, 1992, Az .: 5 StR 190/91
9. ↑ Oliver Harry Gerson, The Right to Accusation , 2016, p. 516
10. ↑ Antje Schumann, interrogation, interrogation, survey , 2016, p. 4
11. ^ Rolf Bender / Armin Nack / Wolf-Dieter Treuer, Establishing facts before court , 2007, Rn. 888 ff.
12. ↑ BGHSt 11, 338 , 340
13. ↑ Ewald Löwe / Werner Rosenberg (ed.), Large Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure , Volume 6, 2010, Section 239 Rn. 6th
14. ↑ BGHSt 40, 211 , Walter Sedlmayr
15. ↑ BGHSt 40, 211
16. ↑ BGHSt 42, 139
17. ↑ Oliver Harry Gerson, The Right to Accusation , 2016, p. 498 f.
18. ↑ Oliver Harry Gerson, The Right to Accusation , 2016, p. 565
19. ↑ Ottmar Kroll: True and false confessions in interrogations . In: SIAK-Journal - Journal for Police Science and Police Practice . 2014, p. 29, footnote 1 .
20. ↑ Rolf Bender / Armin Nack , Establishing facts in front of a court , Volume 1: Theory of Credibility and Theory of Evidence , CH Beck, Munich, 2007, ISBN 978-3-406-35986-6 , p. 1
21. ^ Andreas Petritsch, The contradictory examination of the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz , 2010
22. ↑ Andreas Petritsch, The contradictory hearing. 2010, p. 1
23. ^ Adversarial interrogation. In: The Standard . March 17, 2009
24. ↑ Mei Wu, The Reform of Chinese Evidence Law Against the Background of German and American Regulatory Models , 2010, pp. 201 ff.
25. ↑ US Supreme Court , Barber vs. Page , 390 US 719, 1968, 725
26. ↑ Andreas Förster, The US government investigates the interrogation methods of the Bush era. The CIA has been torturing for much longer: waterboarding, cold torture, truth drugs , in: Berliner Zeitung of August 27, 2009.
27. ↑ Magdalena Hamm, USA: "Doctors have researched torture methods for the Bush administration". , in: Die Zeit of June 24, 2010

Please note the information on legal issues!