The Strategic Use of Evidence Technique

This 2014 chapter by Granhag and Hartwig presents a comprehensive theoretical framework for the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique, synthesizing research on how investigators can strategically manage case evidence during suspect interviews to elicit diagnostic cues to deception. The chapter outlines core principles, tactical categories, and psychological foundations based on understanding suspects' counter-interrogation strategies.

Conceptual and theoretical overview synthesizing empirical research on the SUE technique, organized around three tactical categories: pre-interview evidence assessment, strategic questioning, and evidence disclosure timing.

Background & Context

The past decade has seen a new wave of research centering on strategic ways of interviewing suspects to elicit cues to truth and deception, with the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique pioneering this new line of research. Traditional deception detection research had largely neglected how case-specific evidence could be strategically used during interviews to improve accuracy.

The vast majority of previous research asked lie-catchers to make veracity judgments in the absence of evidence, relying solely on the suspect's demeanor. This represented a significant gap between laboratory research and real-world investigative practice, where interviewers typically possess at least some evidence about the case. The SUE technique addresses this gap by providing a systematic framework for how evidence should be assessed, when it should be disclosed, and how suspects' statements should be evaluated against it.

Research Design & Methodology

This 2014 chapter is a theoretical and conceptual overview, not an original empirical study. The authors present a current conceptualization of the SUE technique, making clear the different conceptual levels and discussing the general principles on which it rests, explaining how these principles are related and tied to basic psychological theory.

The framework synthesizes research from multiple empirical studies and is organized around three core tactical categories:

• Pre-interview assessment of the background information (evidence)
• The questions posed during the interview
• The disclosure of the evidence

The chapter begins with a general overview of research on deception and its detection, describes the psychological foundations of the technique with particular focus on suspects' counter-interrogation strategies, and reviews empirical research to illustrate how SUE principles can be translated into interview tactics.

Results & Key Findings

As a conceptual framework paper, this chapter does not present new empirical findings but rather synthesizes key principles from the SUE research program:

• Innocent individuals are generally forthcoming during interviews whereas guilty ones are inclined to be avoidant or use denials
• Innocent suspects tend to adopt straightforward strategies in which they 'tell the truth as it happened' and provide ample disclosures of information
• Guilty suspects tailor their information disclosures to their perceptions of what the interviewer already knows in order to maintain credibility without making admissions of guilt
• Guilty suspects who do not know what evidence against them exists are more likely to proffer statements that contradict that evidence

The chapter references empirical validation from earlier studies. For example, trained interviewers using SUE created and utilized the statement-evidence consistency cue, obtaining a considerably higher deception detection accuracy rate (85.4%) compared to untrained interviewers (56.1%). Another study cited found that SUE-trained interviewers questioned suspects systematically, withheld evidence until after questioning, relied on statement-evidence inconsistency to detect deceit, and achieved 65% accuracy compared to 43% for untrained interviewers.

Discussion & Significance

The chapter provides empirical evidence in support of the psychological processes key to the SUE technique, making clear that SUE is an integrated system of principles that may generate different outcomes but always draws on the same foundation. This represents a major theoretical advancement in moving deception detection from passive observation of behavior to active elicitation of diagnostic cues through strategic interviewing.

The chapter explores the role of scientifically-grounded interviewing approaches in criminal investigations and prosecution from a "case construction" perspective, evaluating techniques based on their usefulness for accurately distinguishing between innocent and guilty suspects and providing evidence useful for prosecuting guilty defendants, with special focus given to SUE as an empirically supported and theoretically based technique. The framework bridges the gap between academic research and practical application in law enforcement contexts.

Limitations & Considerations

As a theoretical overview rather than an empirical study, this chapter's limitations relate to its scope and application. The framework assumes that interviewers possess some case-relevant evidence to use strategically—when no evidence exists, the technique cannot be applied. Both innocent and guilty suspects are typically motivated to be perceived as credible and convince investigators of their innocence, despite adopting different strategies to achieve this goal, which means the technique's effectiveness depends on understanding these psychological differences.

The chapter synthesizes primarily laboratory and analog studies; the extent to which SUE principles transfer to high-stakes field settings with experienced criminals required further validation at the time of publication. Additionally, suspect counter-interrogation strategies can be affected by prior knowledge of interviewing techniques, suggesting potential limitations when suspects are trained or aware of SUE tactics.

Practical Applications

This conceptual framework has direct implications for investigative interview training and practice. The chapter elaborates on different SUE tactics and offers concrete examples of how these tactics can be implemented. The systematic approach to evidence management—assessing what evidence exists, formulating questions that allow suspects to commit to statements before evidence disclosure, and evaluating statement-evidence consistency—provides practitioners with a structured method for improving deception detection.

The framework emphasizes that effective interviewing requires understanding suspects' psychological perspectives and counter-strategies. By withholding evidence initially and allowing suspects to provide free narratives, interviewers create opportunities for guilty suspects to make statements inconsistent with existing evidence—a more reliable cue to deception than behavioral indicators. This approach aligns with information-gathering interview models used internationally and offers an alternative to confrontational interrogation techniques.