CRITIC'S CORNER: The Oldest Tricks In The Interrogation Book
Maybe your like
CRITIC’S CORNER: The oldest tricks in the interrogation book
WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 5, 2018//
Home>Commentary>CRITIC’S CORNER: The oldest tricks in the interrogation book
CRITIC’S CORNER: The oldest tricks in the interrogation bookWISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 5, 2018//
Listen to this article By Michael D. Cicchini 
Interrogators have tricks to get suspects to waive their Miranda rights and, once those are waived, to confess to crimes. But a confession won’t do the state any good unless a prosecutor can use it at trial.
Therefore, interrogators also have tricks to ensure that the confessions they extract will later be admissible in court.
Below is an excerpt from my book, Anatomy of a False Confession: The Interrogation and Conviction of Brendan Dassey (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018), which exposes one of these tricks. Though it might seem absurd, interrogators can all but ensure the future, in-court admissibility of a confession merely by offering the suspect a soda or snack:
. . . [I]n order to be admissible [a] confession must be the product of the defendant’s free and voluntary choice. . . . So a court will look for little things on which to hang its hat, thus allowing it to find that the confession was not coerced, but instead was made of the defendant’s own free will.
So what do snacks and sodas have to do with that? As [the] state appellate court held, they go to whether the police applied “improper pressures” on Dassey. If the interrogators offered him food and something to drink, that was a figurative “box” the court could “check” in favor of “no improper pressures.” And once a couple of these figurative boxes on the state’s side of the ledger have been checked, the court can find that the confession was voluntary—no matter how many different pressure tactics the interrogators actually used. . . .
Wiegert and Fassbender had been trained that the appellate court would later rely on their generosity with food and drink. That’s why they incorporated another simple trick into their interrogation routine: they repeatedly asked Dassey if he wanted a sandwich, snack, or soda.
For example, at Mishicot High School, right after drilling Dassey about seeing arms, legs, skulls, and other body parts, Wiegert asked him, “Do you want to take a little break, get a soda? You need something to drink?” Dassey declined, but because police interrogators have a difficult time taking no for an answer in any context, Fassbender pressed, “What kind? Do you want something?” Similarly, after getting into more gory detail at the Two Rivers Police Department, Wiegert asked, “Are you doing OK? Do you need a soda or something?”
The interrogators’ generosity continued, and in fact dramatically improved, at the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department interrogation. Even after Dassey told them he wasn’t hungry, Fassbender asked,
“Drink, anything, bag of chips or something, cuz this may, you know, be a little while.” “Naw,” Dassey responded. Fassbender then reinforced a classic cop stereotype: “OK, doughnut?” Dassey declined that snack food as well. A short time later, Fassbender pressed, “Soda? Water? You sure?”
. . . Wiegert, perhaps having missed some of this food-related discourse, wanted to leave nothing to chance. To make sure Dassey’s culinary desires were satisfied, he asked, “Sandwich or anything?” Then, after more discussion of how Dassey allegedly disposed of Halbach’s blood-drenched body, Fassbender resumed the role of headwaiter. “Do you want something’ to eat? Looks like you’re a little hungry.”
Wiegert again offered the menu’s sole choice for the main course. “How about a sandwich? Should we get you a sandwich?”
Offering food and beverage is such an ingrained part of Wiegert and Fassbender’s routine that, much like lying to the suspect, it is probably difficult to turn off. Even after the interrogation ended, and Fassbender was watching Dassey say goodbye to his mother before being ripped away from his simple existence to be locked in a cage, he reflexively asked, “Do you want another water Brendan?”
Interestingly, Wiegert and Fassbender had asked Dassey so many times whether he wanted “a soda” that Dassey actually incorporated it into the yarn he was spinning about Halbach’s rape. . . . In Ken Kratz’s favorite part of the confession, Dassey said that he knocked on Avery’s door and was greeted by his sweaty uncle: “He’s got a white shirt on with red shorts and all sweaty.” According to Dassey’s story, he entered Avery’s trailer where Halbach was tied up in the bedroom, still screaming. Avery then told Dassey that he was in the middle of sexually assaulting her.
On the edge of their seats and eager for details, Fassbender urges Dassey to “play the video [in your mind] for us Bud, tell us what’s happenin’.” The following exchange ensues:
Brendan: He asks me in the kitchen.
Wiegert: He what?
Brendan: He walks me into the kitchen.
Fassbender: What does he say to you?
Brendan: If I want a soda. . . .
Wiegert: So do you have a soda?
Brendan: Mm huh.
Wiegert: And what happens next?
Brendan: I open the soda and I drink some.
. . . [E]ven after the interrogation concluded, Wiegert and Fassbender’s generosity did not end. After they told Dassey’s mother that her sixteen-year-old son had just confessed to committing a violent rape and murder and was going to jail, Fassbender just couldn’t stop himself. “Do you want a sandwich, Barb? We have some here.” Barb’s response exposes the pure absurdity of Fassbender’s offer. “I’d probably just throw it up anyhow.”
And as for the Wisconsin appellate courts’ reasoning that sodas and snacks can overcome a variety of interrogation tactics—including lies, threats, promises, and repeated and grossly leading questions—to render a statement “voluntary,” that’s just legal fiction. Dassey’s appellate lawyers explained it best:
“The psychological effects of false promises of leniency cannot be cured by placing a defendant on a couch or giving him a Sprite.”
Michael D. Cicchini is a criminal defense lawyer and author in Wisconsin.
Share this!
Related Content
A FOIA fight over immigration records
The Department of Homeland Security has changed how it responds to federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)[...]
February 6, 2026
Lazar: Setting the record straight on my stance on abortion
Judge Maria Lazar writes that if elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that her role will be to follow the la[...]
January 22, 2026
Wisconsin newspapers urge passage of legislation to protect free speech
Wisconsin Law Journal supports passage of bill that will allow the courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are[...]
January 21, 2026
Under Trump, a ‘presidential penalty’ extends to court races
Wisconsin exemplifies a powerful pattern in modern American politics. The party that wins the presidency does[...]
January 5, 2026
Administrative hearings records keep info under wraps
Wisconsin’s Division of Hearings and Appeals, the agency that oversees administrative hearings for several s[...]
December 29, 2025
The December question every leader should anticipate
As employees reflect on their careers each December, leaders can boost retention and engagement by recognizing[...]
December 26, 2025
Wisconsin Law Journal Newsletter
Sign up for your daily digest of WLJ.
- By signing up you agree to our
- Privacy Policy
Polls
Who are you most likely to vote for in the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election?
- Maria S. Lazar
- Chris Taylor
View Results
Loading ... Legal News
- Taylor launches first TV ad in court race
- ACLU seeks court action over delayed prison nursery program
- Milwaukee store owner pleads guilty to $1.6M SNAP fraud
- After 2 years, Whitewater gets funding for immigrant liaison
- Federal judge rules Superior police wrong to tase during 2024 traffic stop
- Judge allows lawsuit over uncounted Madison ballots
- Milwaukee sex trafficker sentenced to nearly 22 years
- Judge sanctions Kenosha DA for AI use in court filing
- Court of Appeals race shows rising campaign costs
- Minocqua man sentenced in $828K investment scheme
- Oconto County judge retiring May 1
- Police question Milwaukee city attorney settlements
Case Digests
- Protective Custody-Expert Testimony
- Corporate Governance-Willfulness Standard for Contempt
- Fourth Amendment-Reasonable Suspicion Standard
- Guardianship-Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard-Voting Rights
- Three-Part Test for Associational Standing-Germane Purpose Requirement
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Sovereign Citizen Claims-Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Ineffective Assistance of Counsel-Direct Appeal
- Scope of Default-Forfeiture, Waiver of the Defense
- Totality of the Circumstances Test-Fourth Amendment
- Antitrust Settlement-Judgment Sharing Agreement
- Criminal Law-Evidence
Opinion Digests
- Weekly Case Digests
- Termination of Parental Rights
- Abuse of Discretion – Evidentiary Hearing
- Court Error – Postconviction Motion Denied
- Divorce – Child Placement Order
Manage Consent This website uses cookies, web beacons, pixels, tags, software development kits, and related tracking technologies, as described in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy, for purposes that may include website operation, analytics, analyzing site usage, enhancing site navigation optimizing a user's experience, and third-party advertising or marketing purposes. Through these technologies, we and certain third parties may automatically collect information about your interactions with our website, such as your browsing behavior and page views. We also may share this information about your activity on our website with our social media, advertising, analytics, and other business partners. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of these technologies and that we can share information about your activity on our website with third parties in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. If you do not agree with our use of non-essential tracking technologies, please click “Reject All.” You may opt out of certain non-essential technologies by clicking “Cookie Settings.”
Functional Functional Always active The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network. Preferences Preferences The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user. Statistics Statistics The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you. Marketing Marketing The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.- Manage options
- Manage services
- Manage {vendor_count} vendors
- Read more about these purposes
- {title}
- {title}
- {title}
Tag » Why Do Interrogators Give Food
-
Food Interrogation - TV Tropes
-
If A Cop Puts Donuts On The Table, Should You Eat Them? - Quora
-
Why Do Interrogators Give Food? Explained By FAQ Blog
-
How The Police Could Trick You Into Confessing
-
What Are Some Common Police Interrogation Methods?
-
What Makes For An Unlawful Interrogation?
-
ELI5: While Being Interrogated, If A Police Officer Places Donuts On ...
-
How Police Interrogation Works - People | HowStuffWorks
-
What Should I Expect During A Police Interrogation? | Horst Law
-
The Cops Don't Want You To Know These Secret Interrogation ...
-
[PDF] Interrogation Parity - LAW ECommons
-
Tactics Police Use To Get A Confession