Wicklander - Zulawski and Associates, Inc.

The trusted leader in training for over 25 years.

Tips

Back to Tips

The suspect says, "I am going to sue."

W-Z's April "Tip of the Month"The suspect using this ploy is similar to the preceding example in two ways. First, it is likely that the individual has used or observed this as a means of winning previous encounters. By threatening to sue, he has frightened people in to giving into his wish and when conflict arises, he returns to the well to use it again. Second, the suspect feels a loss of control and frustration at his inability to control the situation.
Threatening to sue, the suspect is attempting to hurt or frighten his interrogator. Most people who threaten to call their lawyer do not even have one, thus it is a hollow threat. The response to the suspect might be a two-part reply.


1)     I can understand the feelings that are present right now, the fear of the unknown. Uncertainty. What should or shouldn't I do. A big part of how people feel at this point is a result of their never having been in a position like this before. The interrogator validates the suspect's feelings, while taking no offense at being threatened with a lawsuit. The interrogator who reacts to the threat of a lawsuit emboldens the suspect to make further threats, demands and statements. Saying, Go ahead. To the suspect only inflames the situation and reduces the exchange to a childlike argument which has a circular form, I will. Go ahead. Well, I will.


Part of what we do in every investigation is to prepare for being sued. What we are required to do is to check and double check our facts and evidence to make sure that they will stand up to inspection at trial. The possibility of an action against us is actually a good thing, because we only proceed in those instances where are facts are absolutely clear. But the reason we sit and talk with people after the investigation is complete is to determine if there were mitigating circumstances in the person's life that caused them to make that error in judgment. The interrogator re-affirms his confidence in the suspect's guilt and the completeness of his investigation. The interrogator's confidence in the correctness of the investigation addresses the suspect's need to believe he is caught before he will confess. If the interrogator shows any uncertainty relating to the suspect's guilt, it will usually result in an increased level of resistance and further denials from the suspect.


Thus the interrogator has let the suspect know that he has not taken the threat to sue personally and he is still willing to deal with the suspect based on the facts. Without delay the interrogator restates his faith in the investigative results which confirm the suspect's belief that he has been caught.


2)     You certainly could sue. The problem with that is it would be a civil trial where the level of proof we would be required to show is much less for us to prove what happened. For example, in a criminal trial, the level of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the civil court it is the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is fifty-one per cent, just a little over half to win. With the investigation that we have we are far above that preponderance and are even well beyond a reasonable doubt. What we need to do here is to try and find out why this happened so people can understand what was going on in your life when this happened. Many people threatening to sue have no understanding of the system and what is required to win. They believe that the mere threat to sue will scare off their adversaries. The interrogator lets the suspect know he understands the civil court system and has prepared for this eventuality. This reply undermines the suspect's hope even further. The suspect now recognizes that even a lesser proof is necessary to establish his guilt.


3)     You could sue, but then this moment would be dragged out for years. Waiting, constantly having this hanging over your head unresolved for years to come. This is a time that is unpleasant for everyone. No one wants to talk about the errors he has made in his life. We all try to put those errors behind us, learn from them and not make the same mistake in the future. Here the interrogator shifts to the future to give the suspect a different perspective of what he is saying when he says, I want to sue. Having to live with an unpleasant memory is something no one wants to do. We naturally allow are minds to bury these errors so we do not have to face them each and every day. The interrogator could illustrate this statement with a story about not letting go of a problem and letting it strongly influence future decisions.



4)     You could do that. But think for a second about how problems grow. People can't talk them out, feelings get hurt, people think the worst and the whole situation gets out of control. I think that many incidents only grow worse because the people won't talk about what happened and hide behind others who may not express the feelings or facts correctly so the incident escalates, getting more serious than was ever necessary. It is like the old joke. There was an lawyer in town who was starving for business, he was the only lawyer in the whole area. Then one day another lawyer moved his practice to town and they were soon both wealthy. People could no longer just talk it out and who was the big winner?

With this response the interrogator uses the general distrust people have for lawyers and their motives. The suspect is made aware of his probable feelings for attorneys and the motives that they have while tying the suspect mentally to talking out problems so they do not escalate.The interrogator would be unwise to challenge the suspect to sue because he has then drawn a line in the sand for the suspect to cross. This is an emotional threat made most often because of an individual's sense that he is losing control. If the interrogator handles the threat unemotionally, and using a rational basis for continued discussion he can often defuse what could be a volatile exchange.



Back to Tips

® 2007 Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. - 800-222-7789 - info@w-z.com