Last week, we commented on the fact that Representative Nunes had recused himself from the investigation into President Trump’s Russia ties after appearing less than impartial in the investigation. Some employers may view the actions of Nunes in briefing the White House on certain classified information was not really wrong and, it could be argued, simply part of the investigation in confronting the accused.
It is certainly true that in any investigation, care should be taken to insure that both the complaining party and the accused have an opportunity to be heard. However, there is a time and a place for confronting the accused. Generally speaking, when conducting an investigation, it is usually best to speak with the accused after all other facts have been gathered. In this way, you can conduct the investigation in a much more efficient matter and will not have to repeatedly interview the accused as more evidence is gathered.
Even more importantly, by waiting to gather even more evidence, you may avoid implicit bias and insure a more thorough investigation. Clients routinely ask me how investigations are going midstream and I always truthfully answer that “I’m not sure yet.”
I’m not simply avoiding having a discussion with my clients when I say this. When I act as an investigator for clients, I know that I work to keep an open mind until all evidence is gathered. This is not always easy as it is human nature to start forming opinions about the stories being told to you. However, if I prejudge a witness as not being credible or that their claims are ridiculous, I will consciously or not, steer the investigation towards the conclusion that fits that prejudgment. In such cases, investigators may short cut an investigation and miss the second or third claim that has merit.
I’ve been listening to a decent amount of criminal justice podcasts, namely “Undisclosed,” and they talk frequently of “confirmation bias.” In short, confirmation bias in an investigation means that if an investigator assumes a certain result is likely, then the investigation will lead to that conclusion. In order to make sure that the desired conclusion is reached, investigators may ignore information that does not fit that conclusion or exaggerate the importance of evidence that does fit the conclusion.
By waiting until an investigator has a full picture of the evidence for and against an accused, the investigator can hopefully avoid any confirmation bias.
[View source.]
