See e.g., United States v. Jones, ARMY 20090401 (A. Ct. Crim. App. December 14, 2011), Appellant was accused of effectively “Equating MOS trainees to permanent party – grandmothers to toads” The court cites to Wikipedia for the proposition that the expression “WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges (a Serbian expression akin to the familiar “apples to oranges” idiom in English) (last visited Dec. 1, 2011); in United States v. Magalhaes, NMCCA 200602480 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. February 21, 2008), the court cites to Wikipedia for the definition of the Pythagorean Theorem; in United States v. Ober, ACCA again resorts to Wikipedia for discussion of Kazza one of the early “programs” used to exchange many things over the internet, but for our purposes CP (which was also done in State v. Ballard, 2012-NMCA-043, ¶ 19 n.1, 276 P.3d 976 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012)(citing Wikipedia to define “peer-to-peer file sharing”).).

But the Fire Insurance Exchange court cites to these several cases and there is an interesting discussion of Wikipedia.

Citing Wikipedia is as controversial as it is common.2 Some courts approve it, others condemn it. Compare United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 650 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating that the court is “troubled by Wikipedia’s lack of reliability”), Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 Fed. App’x 854, 857-58 (5th Cir. 2010) (expressing “disapproval of the [immigration judge]’s reliance on Wikipedia and [warning] against any improper reliance on it or similarly unreliable internet sources in the future”), Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting Wikipedia’s acknowledgment that, “at any given moment,” an entry “could be in the middle of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), and In re Marriage of Lamoure, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“We do not consider Wikipedia a sufficiently reliable source” for defining the term “noncustodial.”), with Prude v. Clarke, 675 F.3d 732, 734 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Wikipedia entry, in the context of an Eighth Amendment challenge, for the proposition that an anal fissure “is no fun at all”), United States v. Brown, 669 F.3d 10, 18 & n.12 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Wikipedia for its definition of “sovereign citizen movement,” one of a criminal defendant’s “atypical legal beliefs”), Murdock v. Astrue, 458 Fed. App’x 702, 705 n.3 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Wikipedia for “some examples of block lengths from cities in this country”), and State v. Ballard, 2012-NMCA-043, ¶ 19 n.1, 276 P.3d 976 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012)(citing Wikipedia to define “peer-to-peer file sharing”).

Before I begin an interview, especially with a complaining witness in sexual assault case, I want to know about that person. At the first contact, and from then on, I constantly assess the person: their emotions, their physical and emotional responses, their word choice, their mannerisms. I’m doing that because I want to establish rapport. (You should of course do the same to the client.) I’ve said this many times, but I’ve frequently been the one to educate the prosecution witnesses on the process and what’s going on and why. That has benefitted me and my client numerous times. The “victim” appreciates you for telling them what’s going on. I cannot remember how many times a “victim” tells me that no one will tell them what’s going on. Defense counsel — this is your moment to establish rapport.

If you establish rapport with a witness you will get more information, the witness will respond better to you, and the witness may be less antagonistic to the client. I had not realized that at least one author calls this “isopraxis.” I know it as mirroring.

Whether preparing for an interview or meeting with an informant, investigators should spend a significant amount of time planning for the most important part of any human interaction—creating and building rapport. Consistently building rapport with various individuals of different genders and ages who represent diverse backgrounds, educational levels, experiences, ethnicities, and mental health concerns proves challenging to many law enforcement professionals. Everyone has their own personality and preference for how they like to give and receive information. One of the most powerful and proven ways of establishing rapport is isopraxis, or mirroring another’s behavior. [See, Joe Navarro, What Every Body Is Saying (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2008), 27, 90.] From the time people are born, they learn to share mirroring behaviors. . . . People find comfort in and, therefore, seek mirroring behaviors. They also discover solace in processing information presented consistent with their personality and preferences. Personality mirroring corresponds with nonverbal mirroring—it tries to match the thought process and style of communication a person prefers. Some people like to socialize as part of the communication process, while others prefer a more direct, task-oriented tact. People tend to favor information that they receive in a pleasing manner, and, consequently, they become more attentive and receptive. Studies have shown that individuals have different personality types for processing information, as well as preferences for how they give and receive information. Investigators who assess for such traits can effortlessly mirror communication styles to conduct more effective interviews and better develop informants. To demonstrate this concept, the authors offer an overview of a law enforcement professional’s attempts to develop a source and his partner’s assistance in doing so.

The rapport building method is not limited to witness interviews. To some extent voir dire is a process of building rapport, as can be cross-examination, direct examination. Gauging who you are dealing with is all part of situational awareness in case preparation and court-room presentation.

Here is the link to Dreeke and Navarro, Behavioral Mirroring in Interviewing, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, December 2009.

Conclusion The challenge that Wilson faced often occurs in the law enforcement profession. Investigators encounter individuals with whom they just cannot seem to make a connection or develop rapport, not only during the interview but in human source development as well. Analyzing people for particular personality and communication styles and then mirroring those traits can prove key when investigators attempt to build relationships. Law enforcement personnel who use this behavioral tool will foster stronger rapport and glean valuable information in the furtherance of their cases.