Report from Iraq

A FLETC Employee on martia

a new legal sysem fo
Model Training

▪	 Instructors that are experienced law enforcement officers

equipped with formal and mandatory FLETC instructor

training programs.

▪	 Educational and academic professionals provide curriculum

design and development, and standardized training.

▪	 Unique training facilities that benefit 83 federal law

enforcement organizations, plus state and local agencies.

▪	 FLETC trains those who protect our homeland.

Experience where it counts

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Glynco | Artesia | Charleston | Cheltenham | ILEAs
Contents

5 FLETC’s P7 fact

Why the FLETC’s success can be attributed to a 

formula known as “P to the 7th power”

9 take control of yo

Take these practical steps to plan a successful 

retirement.

12 the Use of surveillance

criminal investigat

What are the legal parameters for using surveillance 

camera evidence during criminal investigations 

and prosecutions.

31 Mastering the art o

interv

How to develop an interview technique to obtain a 

legally sufficient confession of guilt.

34 mental preparation fo

Four questions that will help you mentally prepare 

for testifying.

37 eet the parners:

Who ensures accountability and integrity within 

government.

40 Hey, what’s up wit

How to correct common marksman errors.

44 the right kind of 

Learn research-based feedback, evaluation tools 

and techniques to improve student performance.

The FLETC Journal | Spring 2008, Volume 6, Issu

31 The Suspect Interview

The approach taken needs to be tailored to 

fit both the person interviewed and collected 

evidence.

18 Iraqi Court Martial

How a FLETC employee and Air Force Reservist 

helps mentor Iraqis with a new military legal system.

40 What’s Up With That?

Marksmanship is such a mental process that 

even when students aim properly they can still 

miss the target. This article explores why...
The FLETC Journal is an unofficial law 

enforcement training magazine produced and 

published by the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center. It is published and printed 

through the Media Support Division in 

conjunction with the Government Printing Office. 

Circulation is 4,000 and the FLETC Journal is also 

available electronically by following the links at 

the FLETC website: http://www.fletc.gov.

Views and opinions expressed in this publication 

are those of the authors, and do not necessarily 

reflect the FLETC training policy or doctrine. 

Articles, photographs, and other contributions 

are welcomed from the law enforcement training 

community and academia. Publication depends 

on general topical interest as judged by the 

editors. No changes to submitted copy will be 

made without the concurrence of the author(s). 

The editors may be contacted at (912) 267-3849.

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Editors

Marie R. Ba

Stephen W. Bro

Lynn Merce

Richard Hazza

William Norris, Ph

Andy Smotz

Susan B. Thornt

Mark Wa

Covers & Center Spread Designs

Fred Charles

Having Words

Marie R. Bauer

Editorial Staff. Front row (left to right): Steve Brooks, Marie Bauer, Susan B. Thornton,

Mercer, and William Norris; Back row: Fred Charles, Andy Smotzer, Sam Webster, Mark Ward, Richard Hazzard.

The people of the FLETC are deeply committed to our mission: 

“We train those who protect our Homeland.” We train the people 

who stand at our borders to protect our Nation from dangerous 

people and dangerous goods. We train the people who protect 

the Nation’s critical infrastructure. We train the people who 

guard our National monuments, parks, and federal lands. We 

train the people who investigate crime that have occurred and 

who investigate to prevent crimes from occurring. 

The people who perform this training are a mix of professional 

trainers with substantial law enforcement experience and current 

federal law enforcement professionals detailed from their 

agencies. We are keenly aware that, as trainers, we do not work 

in the front lines of protecting this Nation – and we are keenly 

aware that we bear a great responsibility for the effectiveness of 

the people that do. Many of our instructors will return to their 

agencies and work side by side with their former students – a 

strong motivator to provide world-class training.

The FLETC Journal provides a glimpse of the diversity and 

talent of the people who train those who protect the Homeland. 

We also take a moment to acknowledge a small and very special 

part of our FLETC family – the reservists and agency personnel 

who deploy to war zones. These are people who can proudly 

say: “We are those who protect the Homeland.” We are proud to 

count these colleagues and friends in our numbers and rejoice at 

their safe return.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 5

“How did FLETC get to be so good?” It 

wasn’t a question I was expecting from 

the woman sitting across the table from 

me: a distinguished Associate Professor and the Director of Research at Johns Hopkins University’s Division 

of Public Safety Leadership. Dr. Phyllis P. McDonald 

and her small team were wrapping up their site visit 

at Glynco, and my close-out interview was part of the 

benchmarking review that FLETC had hired Johns 

Hopkins University to do for us. Our goal was to get 

an independent, third party assessment of how we 

stacked up against others in the law enforcement training community. We were also seeking advice on where 

we could find opportunities to improve. We fully understood that, like any organization, FLETC could always get better. But even as we worked at doing just 

that, I somewhat immodestly acknowledged to myself 

that, all in all, FLETC really is pretty good already. 

Consequently, I found Dr. McDonald’s question very 

intriguing, but, until she posed it, not one that I’d actually thought about much.

Obviously the answer to Dr. McDonald’s question 

is complex, and it has so many facets that no single 

person can be aware of them all. Nevertheless, here’s 

what I’ve come up with in my efforts to answer Dr. 

McDonald’s question. Of course, this answer only reflects my own point of view, and others could come up 

with altogether different constructs that would be just 

as valid.

FLETC’s P7 Factors

By Michael R. Hanneld

Assistant Director for Training Innovation and Management

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
6 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

I’m now up to seven elements: P7 - which is a handy 

way to help me remember the seven factors I think are 

keys to FLETC’s success. P7

 is also an appropriate 

metaphor because each of the “Ps” really does multiply 

the effect of the other six. So “P to the 7th power” is, 

I think, a pretty accurate way of depicting the synergy 

of these P7

 factors:

1. People - FLETC’s strength is its workforce.

• Virtually all our instructors are experienced law 

enforcement officers (LEOs). Our philosophy 

has always been that we can teach experienced 

LEOs to be trainers, but we can’t give trainers 

LEO experience. This is especially important 

in basic training, where students judge credibility by experience and where experienced LEOs 

introduce students to the law enforcement culture and its values.

• FLETC’s unique blend of detailed agency instructors and permanent FLETC trainers provides recentness of law enforcement experience while balancing it with the maturity and 

stability derived through comprehensive training expertise.

• Almost since FLETC’s inception, we have 

had among us a small group of educational 

professionals who usher us along the straightand-narrow path to educational soundness and 

academic legitimacy. Though seldom fully 

embraced by the LEOs, these somewhat alienated and occasionally disaffected academicians 

have nonetheless exerted a powerful and very 

positive influence on FLETC, compelling us to 

build the systems (e.g., some of the “Programs” 

described below) that have given structure and 

validation to our training program development 

and maintenance processes.

2. Places - I suppose you can train without excellent 

facilities, but they sure do help!

• Over the years we’ve built on the world’s premier law enforcement training facilities - many 

of which are completely unique.

• Because we’ve done so much of it for over 3 

1/2 decades, we’ve really gotten pretty good at 

designing, constructing, and utilizing superb 

training venues. Also, our unparalleled experience helps us do it at the lowest possible cost 

with the minimum risk.

• And the old adage really is true - in general, a 

dollar invested at single-agency training facilities like the Secret Service’s Rowley Training 

Center or the Customs and Border Protection’s 

Harpers Ferry Training Center only accrues to 

the benefit of one agency, while a dollar invested at FLETC benefits 83 federal law enforcement organizations (plus a host of state and 

local agencies).

3. Programs - FLETC’s training management systems afford us extraordinary consistency and help 

ensure the quality of the training we deliver.

• Instructional systems design - rigorous curriculum development and curriculum review processes ensure that FLETC training is current, 

relevant, educationally sound, and targeted to 

essential job skills.

• Formalized, mandatory in-house instructor 

training programs have created a professional 

training culture. Since its earliest days, FLETC 

trainers have “cut their teeth” on Robert F. 

Mager’s Preparing Instructional Objectives. 

More recently, new trainers have been indoctrinated with Peter Renner’s The Art of Teaching 

Adults. Mandatory instructor training - not just 

for permanent staff, but for detailees as well 

- has helped ensure that FLETC trainers are 

properly prepared. It has also enabled FLETC 

to drive innovations such as student-centered 

learning, experiential methodologies, interactivity in training, and the integration of technology into training environments. And FLETC’s 

instructor training isn’t just a “check-the-box” 

exercise - it’s a thorough, intense, and demanding program.

FLETC’S P7 Factor

P1 = People

P2 = Places

P3 = Programs

P4 = Partnerships

P5 = Passion

P6 = Practice

P7 = Philosophies
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 7

• Training outcome feedback loop based on 

“FATES” - the FLETC Automated Testing 

and Evaluation System comprised of a student 

feedback system (SFS), an automated testing system (ATS), a practical exercise assessment system (PEAS), and a training program 

continuous validation process (CVP). In the 

Kirkpatrick evaluation model, the first of these 

four FATES components (SFS) provides Level 

I feedback. The next two (ATS and PEAS) give 

us Level II feedback - in a written testing environment and a practical applications environment, respectively. The last component (CVP) 

offers Level III feedback.

• FLETC research to identify the most effective 

law enforcement training techniques, methodologies, and tools benefits the entire training 

community. There may be nobody else in the 

law enforcement training community with the 

talent pool, relationships, and resources necessary to conduct the type of research FLETC is 

doing.

• Accreditation through FLETA is compelling us 

to take care of business, ensuring that we have 

documented our work in detail and tied up any 

loose ends as we develop proofs of compliance 

with FLETA standards.

4. Partnerships - At the end of the day, it always 

comes down to relationships!

• FLETC’s “customers” are true partners in curriculum design, development, and delivery.

• Strengths of individual agencies benefit all 83 

partners (e.g., Capitol Police experience with 

bike patrols helps all agencies that train at 

FLETC on bike operations; Customs and Border Protection experience with marine interdiction and boarding helps all agencies that train at 

FLETC in marine law enforcement programs; 

Park Police experience in emergency response 

driving benefits all agencies that participate in 

driver training at FLETC; ATF experience with 

explosives improves training at FLETC for all 

agencies that could encounter improvised explosive devices - the list of such examples is 

almost endless).

• If one agency develops a new “best practice,” 

consolidated training at FLETC facilitates its 

rapid adoption throughout the law enforcement 

community.

• FLETC provides a forum for relationship 

building among agencies. This is true not only 

of students (who often establish friendships 

at FLETC that endure throughout their careers), but also of staff detailed to or assigned 

at FLETC. Such relationships extend beyond 

training and often carry over into operations in 

the field. FLETC offers a practical opportunity 

to give real effect to the saying, “The critical 

incident is not the ideal time or place to be exchanging business cards.”

5. Passion - “We train those who protect our homeland” - it’s a mission that’s easy to get excited 

about.

• Lives are at stake. And since all our trainers 

and most of our Executive Team have “walked 

the walk” as LEOs, they understand the impact 

of training - good or bad - and the difference it 

makes.

• Training is a force multiplier - FLETC instructors shape the face and character of law enforcement in America (and around the world, 

for that matter) for decades to come.

• As current or former LEOs, FLETC trainers 

will accomplish the mission, regardless of the 

obstacles placed in their way!

6. Practice - FLETC does a lot of training (over 

50,000 students a year), so we get to do it until we 

get it right.

• Though small by DHS component standards, 

FLETC is huge by law enforcement academy 

standards. This gives us a lot of practice. We 

have a lot of opportunities to make mistakes, 

but also a lot of opportunities to learn from 

them.

• Because we will see things once a month that 

smaller law enforcement academies may see 

only once a year, we begin to discern patterns, 

and that enables us to build systems for process 

improvement and error prevention.

• We have 4 domestic and 2 international training sites. This facilitates the discovery and enterprise-wide adoption of “best practices.”

7. Philosophies - With 37 years in the business, 

FLETC’s culture and value system have become 

well established.

• Focus on the students - it’s all about learning. 

Everything else cascades down from that exclusive focus. We can keep focused because 
8 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

our sole mission is training; there are no operational demands competing for our resources.

• Teaching counts for nothing unless learning occurs. To know if learning actually takes place, 

we have to have good evaluation and feedback 

mechanisms. And to know if the learning that 

did take place was, in fact, what actually needed to be learned to do the job, we have to have 

good training validation processes.

• Train the way you’ll work - if agencies train 

together they’ll be more effective when they’re 

called on to work together. Training standardization is invaluable when lessons must actually be applied in the field - often in the context 

of multi-agency operations.

• We’ve come to fully appreciate that, though 

some preliminaries are necessary, learning actually comes from doing. As a result, over half 

the training received by our basic students is 

delivered outside the classroom.

• Largely as a result of our own learning from 

our Canadian friends in the RCMP, we’ve adopted adult learning principles throughout our 

training programs. This has led us to emphasize 

problem-solving techniques, to design curriculums to instill principles rather than to teach 

checklists, and to employ delivery methods 

that are holistic instead of fragmentary (i.e., 

weaving multiple disciplines into training scenarios instead of artificially isolating training 

disciplines in a way that adheres to FLETC’s 

table of organization).

Are there other “Ps” out there that have contributed to 

FLETC’s success? Absolutely! But from the perspective of someone who’s worked with and for FLETC 

for over 30 years, I think these seven “Ps” are the most 

essential ingredients. I have enjoyed the opportunity 

to observe FLETC from both inside and outside the 

fence line. As the training director for one of FLETC’s 

oldest Partner Organizations (PO), I’ve been a FLETC 

customer. I’ve also been a detailed instructor and a 

PO on-site representative. And as a FLETC employee, 

I’ve been a permanent instructor, a first- and secondline supervisor, a mid-level manager, and a member of 

the Director’s Executive Team. I’ve been a trainer, in 

training support, and in administration, serving in more 

than fifteen different roles at FLETC. And at the end of 

the day, I believe my experience has prepared me to 

answer Dr. McDonald’s question: “How did FLETC 

get to be so good?” The answer is really pretty simple: 

it’s found in the P7

 - it’s FLETC’s people, its places, its 

programs, its partnerships, its passion, its practice, and 

its philosophies.

Mr. Michael R. Hanneld serves as the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center’s Assistant 

Director for Training Innovation and Management, a position he has held since March 2004. 

Prior to that Mr. Hanneld served the FLETC 

in a variety of senior positions including: Assistant Director for Administration, Assistant 

Director for Training, Chief Financial Officer, 

Deputy Associate Director for Planning and 

Resources, and Assistant Director for Training 

Support.

Mr. Hanneld began his federal career in 1969 

as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police in Washington, DC. He holds a B. 

A. degree in American Studies from George 

Washington University, and received a J.D. 

degree, summa cum laude, from the John 

Marshall Law School. Mr. Hanneld is also a 

graduate of the Senior Executive Fellows Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy 

School of Government. He is also a member of 

the Georgia Bar and Federal Bar, and is in the 

Senior Executive Service. 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 9

I first arrived at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in January of 1982. Back 

then most of our staff were in their thirties and 

forties; however there were a few exceptions. Today 

those numbers have changed; our staff is a much more 

mature group. According to our Human Resources Division numbers, many of our staff will be eligible to 

retire within the next five years. This scenario is government-wide and a major concern of senior management. The FLETC Journal continues to address issues 

of concern to “senior staff”. A recent article focused 

on staff members passing down their experience and 

knowledge to others so they can excel further in their 

chosen profession. In this issue we also focus on the 

Take Control

of Your Future

By Andrew A. Smotzer

importance of a successful retirement for our staff and 

our students. Our focus this time around is looking forward to a successful retirement.

Planning

I’m one of those fortunate people that are eligible to 

retire within the year. Yes, this can be an exciting time 

in my life but also very stressful. I find myself asking 

questions like, do I have enough money and do I have 

enough activities to keep myself busy? I know it’s important for us to look at retirement not as an end, but as 

a new beginning. With this said, how do we plan this 

next phase in our lives?
10 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

I highly recommend going to some pre-retirement seminars. The Center has offered some very good seminars 

during the past few years. I did attend one during the 

summer of 2007, which was an eight-hour seminar and 

was very pleased with the information given. I have 

talked to several people who have attended seminars 

out of town that are usually two or three days in length 

and are highly recommended. I suggest going to both. 

I also suggest taking advantage of your agencys preretirement seminars if offered, or make arrangements 

to attend one. 

Before I attended the pre-retirement seminar, I read a 

very interesting article concerning retirement in Fortune magazine titled “Secrets to a Happy Retirement”, 

by Stanley Bing. It was very entertaining, so I’m going 

to share some of his ideas and humor with you as we 

explore this important issue. 

Stanley starts out saying, “It’s going to be great!” you 

tell yourself. “Wake up at noon every day like I did 

when I was a teenager! Have a bagel! Play 36 holes! 

Couple of drinks at the 19th green! Wake up and do it 

again the next day! That’s what I call living!” Right. 

Have you thought about what 25 years of that will be 

like? “Get this: A life of incessant recreation and indolence is enough to drive any business entity like you 

or me mad after 3.5 years. He suggests you must pursue a strategic plan, that retirement is a job, and you 

need to plan as such. He also talked about a friend of 

his who had a passion for golf and played every day 

when he could for ten years after he retired. Well, as 

time went on his game started to naturally deteriorate, 

and he became aggravated and quit playing. Now he 

just hangs out and doesn’t play anymore, so make sure 

you keep your hobbies [as] hobbies after you retire.” 

Here’s a side note: Please 

plan your week so you 

take care of all your personal business like grocery 

shopping, car repairs, etc. 

during the week. Keep the 

weekends open for those 

who have to work. I find 

it very annoying standing 

in line with several retired 

people being checked out 

at the register in front of 

me on a Saturday or Sunday. Remember, for those of us who are working, our 

time is very valuable to us because we have so little of 

it. When you are retired every day is like a Saturday! 

So be considerate and thoughtful to those poor souls 

who still have to work.

Fitness & Diet

During this past year my wife got me interested in jogging. She had run in the Jacksonville River Run the 

year before and encouraged me to run in the next one. 

I did run the race even though I wasn’t in very good 

shape, and I’m proud to say I finished. However, I 

continued to run after the race and I’ve stayed with 

it. We run on the average of 3-4 times a week, and 

our distance is about 10-15 miles total. Our running 

depends on how busy our schedules are for that week. 

I lost 20 pounds, reduced stress, and sleep better. We 

are both careful in our runs so we don’t over do it and 

hurt ourselves. We apply the “Long Slow Distance” 

technique also known as LSD. As Stanley says, “I 

can’t tell you how many guys I’ve known who keeled 

over about a week after they told me they were running 

25 miles a week and were in the best shape of their 

life.” So plan on exercising in retirement but please use 

some common sense. As we all know, exercise can be 

good for us: it reduces stress, keeps our weight down, 

and helps us sleep.

Let’s discuss diet, eating, and perhaps drinking, which 

will be one of the bad habits you’re going to want to 

maintain. The key to a healthy diet is variety and moderation. Everyone has a food or drink that they don’t 

want to give up. It could be candy, ice cream, greasy 

foods, beer, etc. No matter what your desires are you 

don’t have to give these vices up altogether. Just remember to apply some 

control and don’t finish 

off the whole carton of 

ice cream. At meals try 

to stay away from second 

helpings. A well-balanced 

diet will consist of whole 

grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein-rich 

foods, and drinking plenty 

of water. If you can, try to 

combine a well-balanced 

diet with cardiovascular and strength training. 

So plan on exercising

in retirement... it reduces

stress, keeps your

weight down, and

 helps us sleep.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 11

I suggest taking advantage of your own physical training staff for help in this area or, if you’re assigned here 

at the FLETC, ask our Physical Techniques Division 

(PTD) for help because those guys are great in what 

they do.

Health & Appearance

Remember what Stanley said earlier in this article, “I 

can’t tell you how many guys I’ve known who keeled 

over about a week after they told me they were running 25 miles a week and were in the best shape of 

their life. This was possibly because they were under 

the care of doctors. As you go forward in your busy 

and fulfilling retirement, avoid contact with physicians 

by any means necessary. At your age, the purpose of 

doctors is to supervise the long decline and demise of 

retired people. Your goal is to go down face first in 

a 28-ounce T-bone at the age of 90. Extensive exposure to doctors will eliminate that possibility.” As my 

old friend Larry Tully of the Firearms Division always 

would say, doctors are practicing medicine and many 

of them have signs posted in their office saying that. 

However, remember they are practicing on us! 

Always try to look your best. We have already talked 

about exercise and diet to keep our weight down, but 

let’s not forget about appearance. Proper grooming 

and dress will enhance our looks. Guys get haircuts 

regularly, even if you don’t have hair. Unless you already have a beard, don’t grow one. Only wear a jogging suit if you plan on jogging, try to stay away from 

sweat pants, and coordinate your colors. When going 

out wear a belt but make sure it’s leather or cloth, not 

shiny plastic. So when I see you in the mall after you 

retire, I hope you’re not wearing black socks along 

with your tennis shoes, yellow shorts, a tee shirt, and 

enjoying an ice cream cone.

Spend Your Money

Go out there and buy! Enjoy the money you have accumulated. At first this will hurt, but push through this 

and enjoy your life. Vacation, buy a new car, or build a 

new house. Hey, why not do both? You’re in the zone! 

As Stanley says, “That’s it! You’re well fed. You’re 

in the groove, baby, spending and wending your way 

around the world that was made for you. And when 

you get tired of all this and run out of money, like everybody told you that you would? Get a job, pal. You 

didn’t think this nonsense was going to last forever, 

did you?” 

As you go forward in your 

busy and fulfilling retirement, 

avoid contact with physicians 

by any means necessary. 

The purpose of doctors is to 

supervise the long decline and 

demise of retired people.

Mr. Andrew A. Smotzer has served the FLETC 

for over 26 years. He is a former Secret Service Uniformed Division Officer and Firearms 

Instructor. At the FLETC he has served as a 

Lead and Senior Instructor in the Firearms 

Division. He is currently a Branch Chief in 

the Behavioral Science Division at the FLETC 

in Glynco, Georgia. He is a graduate of the 

University of Maryland and author of numerous articles in several nationally published law 

enforcement magazines.
12 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

The Use of Surveillance Camera Footag

Criminal Investigation and Prose

By Ed Zigmund

Caught

on Tape 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 13

Surveillance cameras are prevalent in our society. 

Some estimates indicate that in the United States, 

persons can be videotaped up to 30 times per 

day. When a crime occurs, 

law enforcement officers 

often check to determine 

if any surveillance cameras are in the vicinity. Surveillance footage can be 

used to identify, prosecute 

and convict perpetrators 

of crime. For example, 

in February 2004, Joseph 

Smith, age 39, accosted 

11-year-old Carlie Brucia 

as she was walking home 

from a friend’s house in 

Florida. The abduction 

was taped by a car-wash 

surveillance camera. Her 

body was found five days later. The police obtained 

surveillance footage from the car wash. At trial, Smith 

was convicted after the jury saw the videotape and 

heard testimony from several witnesses who said they 

recognized Smith in the video. What, then, are the legal 

parameters for using surveillance camera evidence 

during a criminal investigation, and in a subsequent 

criminal prosecution?

Constitutional Aspects

The constitutional aspects involved in identifying suspects are firmly established. The United States Supreme 

Court has indicated that a show-up is any one-to-one 

showing of a suspect to a witness.1

 Under due process 

considerations, anytime a victim or witness is shown a 

single photograph during an identification procedure, 

the danger of an impermissibly suggestive (unconstitutional) identification procedure is present.2

 Show-ups 

inherently involve a great risk of prejudice because 

they provide only one person that the witness can identify, and that person is usually in police custody.3

 The 

procedure is inherently suggestive because, by its very 

nature, it suggests to the witness that the police think 

they have caught the perpetrator of the crime.4

Is showing surveillance camera footage to a witness, 

in order to obtain a suspect identification, an impermissible show-up procedure? Generally, the answer 

is “no.”

In United States v. Beck, an FBI agent employed a procedure of showing eyewitnesses a bank surveillance

photo of a robber before each witness scrutinized a 

“photospread.” 5 A photospread is an identification 

procedure that consists of 

showing a number of photographs of different persons 

to a witness.6

 The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals 

held that the agent’s procedure was not impermissibly suggestive.

7

 The Court 

stated that the rights of an 

accused are not jeopardized 

when the recollection of an 

eyewitness is refreshed by 

the use of photographs of 

the crime itself.8

 The surveillance photograph that 

the agent showed to the witness depicted the actual 

robber as he left the bank.9 There is little possibility of 

misidentification arising from the use of photographs 

depicting the likeness, not of some possible suspect in 

the police files, but of the persons who actually committed the robbery.10 The photospread did not become 

impermissibly suggestive by virtue of the prior disclosure to witnesses of the surveillance photo of the actual bank robber; to the contrary, the procedure adopted 

permissibly protected the rights of the accused. 11 In a 

previous case, United States v. Stubblefield, the Ninth 

Circuit also held that the rights of an accused were not 

jeopardized because, in part, the photographs shown 

to the witnesses were those of the actual robber. 12

When surveillance camera footage is discovered, law 

enforcement will likely seek witnesses who may be able 

to make a “positive” identification. Officers may show 

the surveillance footage to persons, including police 

officers, who might recognize the suspect. For example, police officers who work a particular geographic 

area may recognize the suspect depicted in the footage. 

Law enforcement might also release the surveillance 

footage to the media, so that it will be broadcast to the 

public on television. Witnesses who know the suspect 

may contact the police and identify the suspect. Based 

on Beck and Stubblefield, it appears unlikely that a due 

process violation will result because the potential witnesses are viewing the actual perpetrator of the crime.

Under due process 

considerations, anytime a 

victim or witness is shown a 

single photograph during an 

identification procedure, the 

danger of an impermissibly 

suggestive identification 

producer is present.
14 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

Federal Rules of Evidence

If law enforcement discovers a witness who can identify a person depicted in surveillance camera footage, 

will this “opinion” evidence be admissible in federal 

court? Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a lay witness may give an opinion regarding the identity of a 

defendant depicted in a photograph, if that witness has 

had sufficient contact with the defendant to achieve a 

level of familiarity that renders the lay opinion helpful 

to the jury.13 Because of this level of familiarity, the 

witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury.14 To establish 

a sufficient level of familiarity, the extent of contact 

with the defendant must be based upon the witness’s 

personal observation and recollection of concrete 

facts.15 It should not be based on the witness’s review 

of photographs of the defendant and other witnesses’ 

descriptions of him, as this is nothing more than the 

evidence the jury would have before it at trial.16

There are several factors a court will consider when 

deciding whether a lay opinion is helpful to the jury, 

based upon the totality of the circumstances, including: (i) the witness’s familiarity with the defendant’s 

appearance at the time the crime was committed;17 (ii) 

the witness’s familiarity with the defendant’s dress 

that is similar to the dress of the person depicted in the 

photographs;18 (iii) whether the defendant had either 

disguised his appearance at the time of the offense, or 

altered his appearance prior to trial;19 (iv) whether the 

witness knew the defendant over time, and in a variety 

of circumstances, such that the witness’s lay identification testimony offered to the jury a perspective 

it could not acquire in its limited exposure to the defendant;20 (v) the degree of clarity of the surveillance 

photograph;21 and (vi) the quality and completeness 

with which the subject is depicted in the photograph.22

The absence of any single factor will not render such 

testimony inadmissible.23 However, lay opinion identification testimony is more likely to be admissible, for 

example, where the surveillance photograph is of poor 

or grainy quality, or where it shows only a partial view 

of the subject.24

Based on these legal principles, whenever a law enforcement officer discovers a lay witness who may be 

able to identify a perpetrator from surveillance camera 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 15

footage, it is important for the officer to thoroughly interview that witness. The facts and circumstances that 

substantiate the witness’ familiarity with the perpetrator, both before and during the time frame in which 

the crime was committed, should be completely and 

accurately documented. In United States v. Dixon, despite two witnesses being indisputably familiar with 

the defendant’s general appearance, the court ruled that 

their testimony was properly excluded from the trial, in 

part, because the evidence failed to establish that either 

witness was familiar with the defendant’s appearance 

at the specific time of the offense. 25

What types of persons can have sufficient familiarity with a defendant to allow this type of opinion 

testimony? 

• Family members and friends of a defendant (whether current or former) can have the requisite degree 

of familiarity. 26 In United States v. Jackman, the 

defendant’s ex-wife and two other persons identified the defendant from surveillance photographs 

at his trial. 27 On appeal, the court said that these 

witnesses had known the defendant for extended 

periods of time, and had seen him on multiple occasions under a variety of circumstances. They 

had seen the defendant numerous times wearing 

various clothing that resembled clothing worn by 

the robber, and were familiar with his carriage and 

posture. As such, their testimony was properly admitted in the trial.

• Co-conspirators and accomplices often have the 

requisite degree of familiarity. 28 In United States 

v. Ellis, an accomplice identified the defendant in 

a bank surveillance photograph during the defendant’s trial. 29 On appeal, the court ruled that this 

testimony was properly admitted because the accomplice: (i) had known the defendant for approximately five years; (ii) he saw the defendant on the 

day before and the day of the robbery; (iii) he met 

the defendant a few days after the robbery; and (iv) 

he traveled with the defendant thereafter. As such, 

the witness’s ability to recognize the defendant by 

the “shape of his body” was helpful to the jury, 

and thus was properly admitted into evidence at 

his trial. 

• Repeat acquaintances can have the requisite degree of familiarity. 30 In United States v. Holmes, 

the appellate court ruled that a witness’s opinion 

testimony, identifying the defendant from surveillance photographs, was properly admitted at the 

defendant’s trial because (i) she met the defendant 

on at least six prior occasions; (ii) each of these 

meetings lasted at least 30 minutes; and (iii) in one 

instance, the defendant spent the night at her mother’s house while she was there. 31 These contacts 

provided the witness with sufficient opportunity to 

observe the defendant’s physical appearance. Due 

to the lack of clarity of the surveillance photographs, and that none of the photographs showed a 

full frontal view of the defendant’s face, the court 

said the witness’s testimony would aid the jury.

• Employment supervisors can have the requisite 

level of familiarity. 32 In United States v. Pierce, 

the appellate court ruled that witness opinion testimony, identifying the defendant from a still photograph taken from a bank surveillance videotape 

of a robbery, was properly admitted at his trial because: (i) the witness had served as the defendant’s 

workplace supervisor for the five or six months 

prior to the defendant’s arrest; and (ii) during that 

time, the witness had seen the defendant wearing 

sunglasses and a baseball hat, the same items worn 

by the robber depicted in the photograph.33 In view 

of the disguise worn by the robber pictured in the 

photograph, and the level of familiarity with the 

defendant’s appearance that the witness possessed, 

the lay opinion identification testimony was helpful to the jury.

• Law enforcement officers can have the requisite 

level of familiarity. 34 In United States v. Beck, 

after a robbery, a federal probation officer was 

shown a photograph from the bank’s surveillance 

system. 35 The probation officer said he believed 

the defendant was the person shown in the photo. 

At the defendant’s trial, the officer testified that he 

had a “professional relationship” with the defendant, and that he believed the defendant was the 

person shown in the bank surveillance photo. On 

appeal, the court ruled this testimony was properly 

admitted in the trial because the probation officer’s 

lay opinion was rationally based and helpful to the 

jury. The officer had sufficient contacts with the 

defendant as he had met with the defendant four 

times, in a two-month period, for a total of more 

than seventy minutes. As such, his perception of 
16 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

the person in the bank surveillance photo was 

helpful to a clear understanding of the identity of 

the person in the photo. 

Does the witness have to be 100% certain that the person depicted in the surveillance footage is the defendant before the witness is able to testify during a trial? 

In United States v. Pierce, a 90% level of certainty by 

a witness that the robber depicted in the photographs 

was the defendant was sufficient to render the witness’s 

opinion helpful to the jury. 36 Overall, courts are likely 

to admit such testimony when there is some basis for 

concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly 

identify the defendant from the photograph, than is the 

jury.37 It is a basic rule of evidence that witnesses need 

not assert that they are certain of their identification beyond a reasonable doubt.38 Although an uncertain, incourt identification will not support a conviction where 

that identification is the only evidence offered on the 

issue of identity, such tentative nature of an identification is not fatal, if there is other sufficient evidence of 

identity.39 Also, issues like the amount of time the witness had to previously observe the defendant, goes to 

the weight to be accorded to the testimony by the jury, 

rather than to its admissibility.40

Conclusion

The prevalence of surveillance cameras in our society 

can be useful to criminal investigators, especially when 

this technology leads to identifying criminals who are 

“caught on tape.” Law enforcement officers should always canvas the area of a crime scene to determine if 

surveillance cameras are in the vicinity. When surveillance camera footage is discovered, it will be important 

to locate any witnesses who can identify the suspect 

in the surveillance footage. The basis of knowledge 

that a lay witness uses to identify a person depicted 

in surveillance footage is particularly important if the 

witness testifies in court. As such, investigators must 

strive to develop the required information from potential witnesses during their investigation, based on the 

legal principles involved, to effectively use this valuable evidence.

(Endnotes)

1 See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 195-98 (1972); 

Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220, 229 (1977).

2 See, United States v. Dailey, 524 F.2d 911, 914 

(8th Cir. 1975).

3 See, Id.; Moore, 434 U.S. at 229.

4 United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131, 138 (3rd 

Cir. 2006); See also, Clark v. Caspari, 274 F.3d 

507, 511 (8th Cir. 2001).

5 418 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2005).

6 See, Beck, 418 F.3d at 1012. 

7 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1013.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 United States v. Stubblefield, 621 F.2d 980, 983 

(9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Evans, 484 F.2d 

1178, 1186 (2d Cir.1973).

11 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1013.

12 621 F.2d at 983.

13 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1014; See also, Federal Rule of 

Evidence 701 (non-expert witness’s testimony in 

the form of opinions or inferences is limited to 

those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness; and 

(b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ 

testimony or the determination of a fact in issue).

14 United States v. Pierce, 136 F.3d 770, 774 (11th 

Cir. 1998); United States v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1, 4-5 

(1st Cir.1995); United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 

1460, 1465 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Towns,

913 F.2d 434, 445 (7th Cir.1990); United States 

v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280, 282 (4th Cir.1986); 

United States v. Farnsworth, 729 F.2d 1158, 1160 

(8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 

1092, 1095 (10th Cir.1980). 

15 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1015.

Courts are likely to admit

such testimony when there 

is some basis for concluding

that the witness is more likely

to correctly identify the 

defendent from the

photograph, than is the jury.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 17

16 Pierce, 136 F.3d at 774; LaPierre, 998 F.2d at 

1465.

17 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1015; United States v. Jackman, 

48 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Allen, 

787 F.2d 933, 936 (4th Cir. 1986), vacated on 

other grounds, 479 U.S. 1077 (1987); Farnsworth,

729 F.2d at 1160; United States v. Barrett, 703 

F.2d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 1983); Borrelli, 621 F.2d 

at 1095; United States v. Brannon, 616 F.2d 413, 

417 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 908 (1980).

18 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1015; Pierce, 136 F.3d at 774;

Towns, 913 F.2d at 445; Borrelli, 621 F.2d at 

1095.

19 Pierce, 136 F.3d at 774-75; See also, United States 

v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 738 (1998); Towns, 913 F.2d at 

445; Borrelli, 621 F.2d at 1095.

20 Allen, 787 F.2d at 936.

21 United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 540, 545 (6th Cir. 

2005).

22 Dixon, 413 F.3d at 545.

23 Beck, 418 F.3d at 1015.

24 See, Jackman, 48 F.3d at 4-5; Allen, 787 F.2d at 

936.

25 Dixon, 413 F.3d at 545-46. 

26 Jackman, 48 F.3d 1; Robinson, 804 F.2d 280 

(defendant’s brother); United States v. Lucas, 898 

F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1990) (defendant’s girlfriend); 

Barrett, 703 F.2d 1076 (defendant’s girlfriend); 

United States v. Ingram, 600 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 

1979)(friends of defendant); Borrelli, 621 F.2d 

1092 (defendant’s stepfather); Towns, 913 F.2d 

434 (defendant’s former girlfriend).

27 48 F.3d 1.

28 Ellis, 121 F.3d 908. 

29 Id..

30 United States v. Holmes, 229 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 

2000); United States v. Jackson, 688 F.2d 1121 

(7th Cir. 1982) (two bank employees and a third 

witness - even though the third witness had only 

met the defendant once, a few months before the 

robbery).

31 229 F.3d at 788-89.

32 Pierce, 136 F.3d 770.

33 136 F.3d at 775-76.

34 Beck, 418 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2005); United States 

v. Butcher, 557 F.2d 666, 667 n.3 (9th Cir. 1977) 

(police officer who knew the defendant for 1 1/2 

years and met him about 3 times for a total 2 1/2 

hours; police officer who knew defendant for 5 

months and observed him for a total time of 2-3 

hours; and parole officer who met the defendant 

for over 1 year and met him 12 times each meeting 

between 15-30 minutes); United States v. Stormer, 

938 F.2d 759, 762 (7th Cir. 1991) (police officers 

who had worked with the defendant for several 

years and were familiar with his appearance).

35 Beck, 418 F.3d 1008.

36 Pierce, 136 F.3d at 774.

37 Pierce,136 F.3d 770; Farnsworth, 729 F.2d at 

1160; Jackman, 48 F.3d at 4-5; Robinson, 804 F.2d 

at 282; Towns, 913 F.2d at 445; LaPierre, 998 F.2d 

at 1465; Borrelli, 621 F.2d at 1095.

38 United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933, 940-

41 (5th Cir 1999).

39 Guerrero, 169 F.3d at 941.

40 Jackson, 688 F.2d at 1125; United States v. Lawson, 653 F.2d 299, 303 n.15 (7th Cir. 1981), cert. 

denied, 454 U.S. 1150 (1982).

Mr. Ed Zigmund is a Senior Instructor in the 

Legal Division of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. He has a B.A. in Criminal Justice from King’s College, PA and a J.D. 

(magna cum laude) from Widener University 

School of Law, PA. He served as a Police Officer, Sergeant, and Detective Lieutenant with 

the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department, PA. 

He was an Assistant District Attorney in Lackawanna and Cumberland Counties, PA and a 

Police Legal Instructor at the North Carolina 

Justice Academy.
18 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

FLETA/FLETC

First Iraqi Post-Conflict

Court Martial

By Steven L. Argiriou, Lt. Col, USAFR
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 19

I

’m Steve Argiriou of the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Accreditation Board (FLETA), Office of 

Accreditation, Glynco, Georgia. I am currently on 

a military leave of absence from FLETA / FLETC and 

writing this from my deployed location in the International Zone (IZ - formally known as the Green Zone) 

in Baghdad, Iraq. I have been here since July of 2007. 

My “home station” Air Force Reserve assignment is as 

the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for the 413 Flight Test 

Group, Air Force Reserve Command, (ARFC), Robins 

AFB, Georgia. The Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (aka 

JAG) for my “home” unit is Captain Bradley Lawrence, USAFR, who you may know as a Senior Legal 

Instructor assigned to the FLETC Legal Division.

I thought it might be of interest to the FLETA / FLETC 

community to see the concrete accomplishments of 

the training / transition mission here in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF) and how 

many government employees are participating. I think this is especially relevant in light 

of the fact that FLETA / 

FLETC has been such a 

model employer regarding support to the many 

FLETC (and in my case 

FLETA) and partner 

agency employees who 

have deployed in support 

of the Global War on 

Terrorism (GWOT). Of 

course, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has many 

other deployed personnel out here in both military and 

civilian status. Many reservists, Guardsmen and active 

federal law enforcement officers, who are part of the 

DHS family, are out here contributing to the OIF mission every day. My story is just one of many.

I am currently deployed to Iraq on a six month tour 

(extended to twelve) and assigned as the Chief, Operational Law / Military Justice for the Multi-National 

Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Office 

of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA) located in the IZ, 

Baghdad, Iraq. In the course of my duties, I was present at the first post-conflict court-martials of the new 

Iraqi Armed Forces using the recently enacted Iraqi 

Military Penal Code and Procedural Law that serve 

as the Iraqi version of the American Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ). This historic courts-martial 

was held in the newly built Baghdad Central Military Courthouse located “outside the wire” at the Old 

Muthana Airfield adjacent to Headquarters, 6th Iraqi 

Ground Forces Division in Baghdad. The MNSTC-I 

OSJA played a pivotal role in obtaining the funding 

for and advising / supervising the site selection, design, 

construction, equipping and training of many key court 

personnel (including the judges) for this court house 

as well as the nearby Iraqi Military Court of Cassation 

(Appeals) and several other military court complexes 

nationwide. 

MNSTC-I is a true joint command, but very “Army 

heavy.” It is the primary training command for Operation Iraqi Freedom and is 

commanded by Lieutenant General James Dubik, 

USA. The command staff 

for MNSTC-I includes 

ten flag officers from the 

Army, Navy, Australian, 

and Danish military as 

well as Brigadier General Robert R. Allardice, 

USAF, the Deputy Commanding General, Coalition Air Force Training 

Team. The MNSTC-I 

training mission in Iraq 

is diverse. It includes 

not just the delivery of 

actual training, but also 

the mentoring of Iraqi forces so they can conduct their 

own training, help with infrastructure development, 

operational mentoring, ensuring Iraqi forces have the 

needed equipment and logistical support elements to 

become fully independent, and more. 

The MNSTC-I Office of the Staff Judge Advocate 

(OSJA) consists of six Judge Advocates, one contract 

employee, and two local national employees. The office is currently organized as follows:

Staff Judge Advocate: Colonel Kent R. Meyer, US 

Army, Active Duty

FLETA/FLETC has been

such a model employer 

regarding support to the many 

FLETC and partner agency 

employees who have deployed 

in support of the Global 

War on Terrorism.
20 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

Chief, Administrative Law: Lt Colonel Charles Huguelet, USAFR

Chief, Operational Law / Military Justice: Lt Colonel 

Steven L. Argiriou, USAFR

Deputy Chief, Operational Law / Liaison: Lt Colonel 

John Coughlin, NH Army National Guard

Chief, Fiscal / Contract Law: Major Eugene Kim, US 

Army, Active Duty

Deputy Chief, Fiscal / Contract Law: Captain Ed 

Riffle, Army Reserve

Bi Cultural Advisor / Iraqi Attorney: Mr. M. Soby (US 

citizen / contractor)

Two Translators – Iraqi citizens

As the Chief, Operational Law / Military Justice, I am 

the primary staff officer, under the direct supervision of 

the Staff Judge Advocate, responsible for all operation-
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 21

al law issues in connection with MNSTC-I operations 

throughout Iraq as well as all military justice matters 

related to the good order and discipline of the command. The Operational Law Division also conducts 

liaison / mentoring operations with the Iraqi Ministry 

of Defense, Office of General Counsel, and the Iraqi 

Joint Military Headquarters, Senior Legal Advisor. It 

was as the Chief, Operational Law, that I had the good 

fortune to assist and provide oversight for LTC John J. 

Coughlin’s outstanding efforts in these matters bringing new Iraqi military courthouses on line and mentoring the Iraqis in deploying their new military legal 

system. I replaced Lt Col Jerry Parrish, USAFR, in 

July of 2007, who had done a great deal of work laying 

the foundation for the work that we carried on.

Many of the operational law taskings I work, like other 

deployed Judge Advocates (JAGs) include many issues 

of first impression with no “textbook” answer. Issues 

such as what type and degree of support is lawful and 

advisable for local nationals serving as contract translators under credible death threats due to their service; 

does a contract private security company have a valid 

Iraqi business permit if they applied for a renewal as 

required in a timely manner, but due to overwhelming backlogs the Iraqi Ministry of Interior has not reviewed, approved, or extended any of the submitted 

renewals; how do you handle an allegation by an Iraqi 

member of Parliament that an unidentified US soldier 

wrongfully and rudely confiscated his handgun at a 

checkpoint somewhere in Baghdad; what do you do 

with a request by a person who served as a translator 

for US Forces in 2003, who is now lawfully temporarily in the United States and petitioning your flag officer 

in Iraq for a statutorily required General Officer Letter of Recommendation in connection with the Special 
22 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

base to base is not an option due to the extraordinary 

time, manpower, planning, and costs involved. 

By the time I arrived in 

Iraq, there was still work 

that needed to be done 

mentoring the senior 

Iraqi legal leadership and 

completing the finishing touches on the construction and equipping 

of the Baghdad Central 

Military Court House 

and Court of Cassation. 

Continued mentoring of 

the Iraqi legal leadership, 

to assist them in fielding 

their new justice system, 

was a priority. Concepts 

that American JAGs take for granted, such as tracking and reviewing the number of crimes committed 

and the number of disciplinary actions initiated, were 

new to the Iraqis. Assistance was also provided in 

developing military justice related standard forms and 

assisting the Iraqis to fully exploit modern office technology such as computers, digital copying equipment, 

internet connectivity, as well as developing training 

Visa Program for Iraqi Translators; what training is 

needed for Iraqi legal advisors using a new criminal 

justice system that never 

existed before, etc, etc. 

Due to unusual lines of 

military authority, almost 

every disciplinary matter 

ends up being resolved 

through a complex web 

of inter service coordination and referral. A typical Article 15 (a military 

nonjudicial punishment 

(NJP) disciplinary action) 

may involve an offending 

member 100 - 150 miles 

to the south of me, witnesses 20 miles to the 

north of me, an NJP authority 5 miles to the east of me 

with a “servicing” SJA office 10 miles farther east at 

yet another base. Many “remote” units I support have 

no DSN (military defense network telephone system) 

phones, some of their cell phones may or may not be 

able to “talk” to my cell phone, and some have limited 

e-mail capability making simple communication not 

so simple. Due to security issues, driving around from 

Assistance was also provided 

in developing military justice 

related standard forms

and assisting the Iraqis

to fully exploit modern

office technology...
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 23

programs. As a result, LTC Coughlin and I (along 

with other staff and unit members) made bi-monthly 

site visits to the Baghdad Central Military Courthouse 

and the Court of Cassation, as well as frequent visits 

to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense Building to coordinate with Iraqi legal leadership. Our duties consisted 

of inspecting construction, overseeing the delivery of 

all furnishing (from waste baskets to executive desks) 

and all office equipment for both the Baghdad Central 

Military Courthouse and the Court of Cassation. One 

of the unique design features of both courthouses is the 

inclusion of living quarters, kitchens and bath facilities 

for staff due to security needs. Office visits to senior 

Iraqi legal leadership concerned observing office operations, discussing legal management “best practices” 

and mentoring sessions on a variety of topics including 

tables of organization; field reporting requirements; 

training needs and career management.

I had the pleasure of working closely with the Senior 

Judge for the Iraqi Court of Cassation (an Iraqi Major 

General), the Chief Judge of the Baghdad Central Military Court (Brigadier General) as well as many other 

Iraqi legal advisors ranging in rank from first lieutenant to full colonel. I found the Iraqi legal advisors, 

regardless of rank or age to be intelligent, educated, 

polite, in good humor and dedicated to the rule of law 

to the point where they risk their life by simply wearing their uniform in public. 

1st Post Conflict Court-Martial: 22 November, 2007, 

Baghdad Central Military Courthouse

The new Iraqi Military Penal Code became effective 

this last summer and the new Iraqi Military Justice 

Procedural Law became effective September, 2007. 

These laws were designed to create a fair and efficient 

military justice system designed to preserve the good 

order and discipline of the Iraqi Armed Forces, while 

honoring the rule of law. Using these new laws, the 

Iraqi Armed Forces conducted the first court-martial 

since the fall of the Saddam Hussain regime. This historic legal proceeding was the result of a long partnership between Coalition Forces and the senior leadership of the new Iraqi Armed Forces, working jointly 

toward the rule of law in the Iraqi military.

The Iraqi military justice system is different from the 

American UCMJ, but it is thorough and fair. In Iraq, 

Judge Advocates are usually referred to as “Legal Ad-
24 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

visors.” Only persons qualified as Iraqi attorneys may 

be appointed as an Iraqi Legal Advisor in the military 

service. Only military legal advisors may be appointed 

as judges. In Iraq, a law degree is awarded after four 

years of what we would call undergraduate study with 

a concentration in law. There are about 35 law schools 

in Iraq with most located in Baghdad. The most well 

known Iraqi law school, “The Baghdad Law School,” 

recently celebrated one hundred years of continuous 

operation. The Iraqi military justice system operates 

under the “Judicial Tribunal” system. There are no ju-

ries but rather three military judges that hear all cases. 

Charges are typically investigated under command di-

rection and referred to an investigating officer or board 

of officers. Upon completion of the investigation, the 

case file is forwarded to the servicing Legal Advisor 

(currently assigned at the Army Brigade and Division 

levels). The Legal Advisor will review the matter, 

confer with the commander, and, if appropriate, refer 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 29

the case for court-martial. Interestingly, there is little 

capacity for a dedicated law enforcement element conducting a criminal investigation. Most investigations 

are conducted by the appointed line officers or 

board of officers who can 

call upon crime scene 

and/or forensic support, 

as needed and available. 

The Iraqi military procedural code permits 

the military judges to be 

very active during the 

proceeding. Typically, 

the Chief Judge (in this 

case a brigadier general) 

swears in all witnesses 

and questions them under 

oath with inputs from the 

other two voting military 

judges (in this case two full colonels) and the permanently assigned Court Prosecutor (in this case a major). 

The accused is entitled to a defense counsel but may 

waive that right.

The accused stands in a symbolic wooden cell in the 

courtroom under the watchful eye of the unarmed court 

bailiff (a noncommissioned officer). 

FIRST COURT-MARTIAL: The first court-martial 

was referred to court by an Iraqi Army Division Legal 

Advisor holding the rank of full colonel. The accused 

was an Iraqi private (known as a “jundi”) who was accused of committing a battery on an Iraqi Army First 

Lieutenant and being insubordinate. The court began 

with three witnesses, including the victim, taking the 

stand and being questioned by the Chief Judge. In 

this case, the jundi waived his right to silence and, on 

occasion, was asked questions by the Chief Judge during the examination of the witnesses. I observed the 

Chief Judge question the witnesses while carefully 

referring to a case file and comparing previous statements given by the witness and others during in-court 

statements. While I don’t speak or understand much 

Arabic, there are some facial expressions and tones 

of voice that seem to be universal to all JAGs. It appeared that the Chief Judge was having a hard time 

believing some of the witnesses, including the victim. 

After about six hours of questioning, the Chief Judge 

called a recess to deliberate with the other two judges. 

After deliberations, the Chief Judge called for a weeklong recess and directed 

the case be investigated 

further at the Division 

level. The Chief Judge 

later explained that after 

hearing the witnesses, 

he was concerned the 

alleged victim officer 

may have been culpable 

for conduct unbecoming an officer and/or 

participating in a mutual 

affray. After the case was 

investigated further, the 

court was reconvened. 

The jundi was eventually 

convicted and sentenced 

The Chief Judge later explained 

that after hearing the witnesses, 

he was concerned the alleged 

victim officer may have 

been culpable for conduct 

unbecoming an officer...
30 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

to three months confinement. The Chief Judge, however, is currently reviewing the supplemented case 

file and considering charging the officer victim with 

conduct unbecoming an officer. In the Iraqi system, a 

judge can prefer charges on his own.

The decorum in the court was much like any Air Force 

courtroom. The accused was treated with care and 

consideration and all parties conducted themselves 

with military bearing. The courts are open for public 

view and the courtroom has a series of bench seats in 

the rear for this purpose.

 Once the court was recessed, the Chief Judge told our 

party that he was honored to have presided over the 

first post-conflict court-martial and have U.S. military 

JAGs present. He said that he had waited decades for 

a return to a fair and just military justice system in Iraq 

and thanked us for the support Coalition Forces provided to build and equip the modern court over which 

he now presided. I’m pretty sure I heard his voice 

crack with emotion as he told us this. On the days 

when I think about the family separation, spartan living conditions, dangers inside and outside the wire that 

all deployed members experience, and whether or not 

I should have retired from the Air Force Reserve six 

years ago when I was first eligible, I think of that day 

when I was able to observe the first post conflict Iraqi 

court-martial and hear what the Chief Judge had to say. 

The importance of the work we are all doing (active 

duty, reserve, home support employers, co-workers 

and family) in support of this effort is then very clear 

to me. Without the support of employers like FLETA 

and FLETC and the dedication of the co-workers left 

behind to fill the void left by deployed members, we 

might not have been able to achieve so much here in 

Iraq. At one point, reserve and Guard forces made up 

45% of the combat and operational strength in Iraq. 

Of course, I must also mention the sacrifice of family 

members left behind. They are the ones who bear the 

heaviest burden. Nonetheless, I am confident that some 

day my children and / or grandchildren will read in the 

history books how the United States military (active 

and reserve components) helped bring back the rule of 

law to the Iraqi military during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The footnote will be that the reserve components 

contributed significantly to this mission and model employers like FLETA / FLETC made it possible.

PostScript: The senior management of FLETC, the 

Journal staff, and all partner agencies would like to 

thank all that have served or are presently serving 

our country. There is no greater sacrifice than to leave 

family and friends for an unspecified time frame to go 

into a war zone to help provide freedom for others. We 

salute all of you. 

Mr. Steven L. Argiriou is a program manager 

and law enforcement specialist for the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Accreditation 

Board, Office of Accreditation, FLETC Glynco, 

GA. He wrote this article while deployed in 

Baghdad, Iraq within the International Zone 

(formally “Green Zone”). He is an Air Force 

Reserve Staff Judge Advocate for the 413 Flight 

Test Group, Air Force Reserve Command, 

Robins AFB, GA.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 31

For over three years, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) has provided our 

Criminal Investigator classes with unique opportunities to develop or sharpen their skills in suspect 

interviewing. During both a laboratory and practical 

exercise, students are provided with a completed investigative file and are tasked with conducting an interview with the subject of their investigation. The goal of 

each interview is to properly confront the subject with 

the evidence developed and obtain a legally sufficient 

confession of guilt. A group of trained experienced role 

players add to the authenticity of the exercise.

For over twenty years, I have instructed on the subject 

of interviewing at the FLETC. As a Senior Instructor 

in both basic and advanced interviewing, exercises 

like the ones just described have provided unique opportunities to examine suspect interviews up close 

and personal. I have personally witnessed hundreds of 

interviews conducted by first time novices, as well as 

experienced veterans. 

As an observer and passive participant in the complex 

process of a suspect interview, I have reached a number of conclusions concerning the actions taken by the 

interviewer that both add and subtract from his or her 

chances of obtaining a full confession of guilt.

The interviews I have observed have clearly shown 

that each suspect being interviewed is unique and must 

be considered first as an individual. The approach the 

investigator ultimately develops needs to be tailored 

to fit not only the person being interviewed, but the 

evidence collected against this person and the crime 

which they committed. 

Thoughout the process that unfolds, the subject will 

continually mentally weigh the consequences of his 

Mastering the A

The Suspect Intervi

By Robert C. Wells
32 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

actions and the justifications developed for those 

actions.

Successful suspect interviews ultimately require the 

subject to trust and confide in the interviewer. Remember, people never confide in those who judge their 

behavior. Instead, they confide in those who seek to 

understand and accept it. In the stressful environment 

of a suspect interview, understanding and acceptance 

often become critical elements if rapport is to be maintained and the suspect is to be completely truthful with 

the investigator. 

Successful suspect interviews often require the investigator to skillfully:

•	 Develop rapport

•	 Present evidence 

•	 Manage resistance

•	 Secure an admission

•	 Develop a legally sufficient confession

The complex process that unfolds during a suspect interview may be thought of in the same manner as another significant emotional crisis ...the loss of a loved 

one. In both cases, a person is likely to travel through 

the emotional stages of:

•	 Denial

•	 Anger

•	 Bargaining

•	 Depression

•	 Acceptance

A good interviewer recognizes that each of these stages 

is likely to play out during confrontation. Denial may 

come as early as the knock on the door or the phone 

call from the investigator. Anger may play out during 

a period of resistance as a method for reducing stress 

or as a tactic for persuading the interviewer that he/she 

is wrong. During Bargaining, the subject is often taking a hard look at what alternatives remain and will 

often seek to negotiate their outcome. During Depression, the subject becomes more submissive, and eye 

contact may be lost. Often Acceptance, once reached, 

may be signaled by a deep sigh indicating the internal 

struggle is over.

During the interview, it is common for the subject to 

move back and forth between these stages. The interviewer must remain patient and confident during this 

often volatile period.

Ultimately, people confess when they perceive the 

benefits of admission as outweighing the consequences 

of continued deception. The job of the investigator is 

to showcase the benefits of admission and full cooperation. This requires a level of persuasion that is best 

built on a solid foundation of trust and rapport.

There are any number of actions the interviewer can 

take to manage resistance and move the subject toward 

cooperation. These actions include:

•	 Showcasing confidence in the case facts presented

•	 Showing confidence in the subject’s involvement

•	 Showing understanding of the subject’s motivation

•	 Showcasing resolution of the situation

•	 Appropriate use of space and movement 

•	 Appropriate use of silence

Thoughout the process, the interviewer must be able to 

convince the subject that his/her foremost concern is to 

help the subject resolve this issue so that he can move 

forward with his life. The subject needs to see that the 

benefits gained from a full admission of guilt far outweigh any benefit derived from continued deception. 

He also needs to recognize that he is being viewed as 

simply someone who made a mistake in judgment that 

he needs to put behind him.

Some form of denial is likely to surface during the period of resistance. How the interviewer controls denials will either add to or subtract from his or her chances 

for success. Any interviewer seen as unconvincing or 

indecisive will increase the time and intensity the subject devotes to denials. 

During the period of resistance, each action by the in-
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 33

terviewer is being carefully weighed by the subject. For 

example, when interviewers ask too many unnecessary 

questions in a confrontational interview, what this 

practice often says to the subject is: “They don’t have 

it all figured out. They haven’t done their homework.” 

When this becomes the perception of the subject, the 

benefit of denial is seen as clearly out-weighing the 

benefits of admission. While some questions are necessary during such interviews, it is important that each 

question asked have a purpose for the interviewer. 

Resistance has been shown to increase when 

interviewers: 

•	 Showcase punishment rather than resolution

•	 Use silence too early in the interview 

•	 Provide incorrect or incomplete case facts

•	 Provide incriminating case information too early 

•	 Provide incriminating case information too quickly

•	 Use justifications for the subject’s behavior too early 

in the interview

Denials and other forms of resistance are less likely to 

surface when the interviewer is seen as:

•	 Thorough

•	 Straightforward

•	 Confident

•	 Knowledgeable

•	 Trustworthy

Ultimately the purpose of the suspect interview laboratories and practical exercises is to assist students in 

practicing the skills they will work their career to master. Our goal for these exercises is to assist each student 

to:

•	 Develop skills in preparation for confrontation

•	 Build overall confidence

•	 Improve skills at creating rapport

•	 Improve skills at managing denials

•	 Foster patience

•	 Foster flexibility

•	 Deepen their understanding of the difference between 

first admission and final confession statement

The art of interviewing is learned, polished, and improved only through practice and constant evaluation. 

FLETC offers our students two programs in advanced 

interviewing designed to enhance this important skill: 

The Law Enforcement Advanced Interviewing Training Program (LEAINTP), designed for Criminal 

Investigators, and The National Investigative Interviewing Training Program (NIITP), developed to meet 

the advanced interviewing needs of all other federal 

investigators, investigative assistants and analysts. 

Please visit the FLETC website for more information 

and a schedule of upcoming classes.

Mr. Robert C. Wells has been an instructor with 

the Behavioral Science Division of FLETC 

since 1987. Since then, Bob has trained more 

than 100,000 officers, investigators, prosecutors and judges in more than 40 states. He is 

one of America’s most experienced trainers in 

Advanced Interviewing Techniques.

Bob’s training assignments have included 

the FBI Academy, the International Law Enforcement Training Academy in Thailand and 

Department of Defense in Germany. Bob has 

taught Advanced Interviewing to criminal investigators from Russia, Jordan, Turkey and 

Columbia.

Bob continues to provide operations support 

as requested to law enforcement agencies in 

the analysis of written statements and taped 

interviews.

Bob’s more than thirty-five years experience 

includes positions in patrol, investigation, corrections, management and planning. He has a 

B.S. Degree in Criminology from Florida State 

University and an M.S. degree in Criminal Justice from Nova University. Bob is a regularly 

published author in publications that include; 

the FBI Journal, Police Chief, Police Magazine 

and the FLETC Journal.
34 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

Despite what is often portrayed on television, 

the courtroom is not a place where mysteries 

are solved. If you’re in law enforcement, you 

should know this. After all, did you arrest the wrong 

guy? Are you asking the prosecutor to seek a conviction against a potentially innocent person? Of course 

not.

“Mental preparation” and “attitude” are frequent subjects in law enforcement training. Usually, they are 

applied to physical attributes, such as confronting suspects and using force. However, these skills are just as 

necessary when testifying at trial.

Consider this example: You are serving a warrant 

when a large male suspect rushes at you with a knife 

raised in his hand. Would you run and hide? Tell the 

suspect you’re not feeling well? Doubt whether or not 

the suspect is really a threat? Yet, the equivalent behavior occurs in court when an officer testifies with 

a voice too soft to hear, needlessly qualifies answers 

(“to the best of my recollection”), or appears unsure of 

himself on cross-examination.

Much of this is learned behavior. Ask a five year old 

about Santa Claus and you’ll likely get an extremely 

assertive response on everything from presents to Rudolph. While their basis of knowledge might be lacking, 

they are confident and assertive in their testimony. 

Now picture the last math class you ever had. It was 

likely the hardest, and you were probably given problems which you couldn’t solve. You showed your work, 

you wrote down the formula, you told the teacher how 

hard you studied, and the teacher graded on a curve. 

So, when you answered 8 but the answer was -432.59, 

you got a C. You learned that even if you were wrong, 

you could pass as long as you tried hard.

If you think that’s the real world, try telling the knifewielding suspect that you worked real hard in firearms 

training but never quite got the hang of it. Try telling 

the judge you took good notes in evidence class but 

you just forgot to properly bag the evidence. Try convincing a judge or jury that you’re a credible witness if 

you qualify your answers, forget details and unprofessionally display emotion from the witness stand.

All this can be overcome with solid mental preparation. You will likely never be asked any of these four 

questions. However, you should answer them before 

you testify in any case:

Four Questions to 

Mentally Prepare for

Testifying

By Keith Hunsucker
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 35

1) Do you think the Defendant is guilty? You should 

answer “yes” without hesitation. Why do you think 

the Defendant is guilty? Did he confess? Did you see 

the crime committed? Did others identify him as the 

criminal? Did you find evidence of the crime on his 

person or property?

No judge or jury is going to convict a defendant if the 

prosecuting police officer isn’t even sure of his guilt. 

Go to some quiet spot and literally explain out loud the 

evidence which you know proves the defendant’s guilt. 

It is very unlikely you will ever be asked whether or 

not you think the defendant is guilty, but verbalizing 

the evidence of the defendant’s guilt will put you in the 

right frame of mind to testify.

2) Have you ever told a lie? The textbook answer is: 

“I have never told a lie under oath.” If you commit 

perjury and lie on your arrest reports, you should - and 

this is important - go and resign right now. You should 

also immediately report all of your previous false official statements to the police and prosecutors so they 

can get the falsely accused out of prison and put you 

there in their place.

Whoa, you say. I don’t 

lie in my official capacity. Good. Then don’t 

allow a defense attorney 

to make you look like 

you do. Defense attorneys will seldom accuse 

you of outright lying, but 

they will try to get you 

to change your answers. 

This can make you look 

like a liar or an idiot. 

Here’s an example:

Question (from Defense 

attorney): “You testified when you first saw the defendant he was standing approximately 30 feet from the 

front of the liquor store. Is that correct?”

A: Yes.

Q. Could it have been 35 feet?

A. Possibly.

Q. 25 feet?

A. Maybe.

Q. Maybe even 40 feet?

A. Perhaps.

The original answer was “approximately thirty feet.” 

How did it become somewhere between 25 - 40 feet? 

Because the witness was afraid of “lying” and therefore changed his answer to suit the defense attorney. 

If the answer is “approximately 30 feet,” don’t change 

it to suit the defense attorney. Here’s how this line of 

questioning should actually go:

Question (from Defense attorney): “You testified 

when you first saw the defendant he was standing approximately 30 feet from the front of the liquor store. 

Is that correct?”

A: Yes.

Q. Could it have been 35 feet?

A. I don’t believe so.

A good defense attorney won’t have any more questions on this topic. If you’re not facing a good defense 

attorney, then here’s what 

may happen:

Q. Why couldn’t it have 

been 35 feet, you said 

approximately?

A. In my judgment it was 

30 feet, but since I didn’t 

have the opportunity to 

measure the distance I 

said approximately 30 

feet so as not to mislead 

the judge or jury. 

3) Have you ever broken the law? I’ll bet you have. 

I did an informal study on this years ago by asking 

this question of federal agent trainees in a mock trial 

exercise. A surprising amount instantly replied “no.” 

It went something like this:

Q. Have you ever broken the law?

A. No.

Q. Do you have a driver’s license?

No judge or jury is going

to convict a defendant if

the prosecuting police officer 

isn’t even sure of his guilt.
36 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

A. Yes.

Q. And you’ve never gone over the speed limit, turned 

without signaling or committed any other type of traffic offense?

A. Well, I’ve probably done some of those things.

Q. But you’ve never violated any more significant 

law?

A. That’s right.

Q. Except for the perjury you just committed when I 

asked you if you’d ever broken the law?

Wait a minute, you’ve never seen this line of crossexamination? That’s because it’s stupid and doesn’t 

impress anyone. It’s just a trick that doesn’t make any 

valid point. The real point is this: Are you worried 

about this type of question when you testify? If so, 

talk to the prosecutor about it. I’ve had law enforcement witnesses perform terribly on the witness stand, 

looking unsure of themselves and visibly nervous. Afterwards, I asked them what the problem was. I usually got answers like: “Thank goodness he didn’t ask 

whether I’d ever smoked dope,” or “I was afraid he’d 

ask me about that trouble I got into in high school.”

Does previous marijuana use or a high school vandalism conviction make the defendant any less guilty? Of 

course not. Those matters are legally irrelevant. The 

problem is that witnesses who are worried about these 

questions make lousy witnesses. If you have a past 

filled with criminal activity, then you shouldn’t be in 

law enforcement. But if you’re afraid of some embarrassing event from your past coming up, talk with the 

prosecutor. Odds are it is totally irrelevant and will 

never be mentioned in court. We’ve all “broken the 

law.” Don’t let an unreasonable fear of embarrassment 

make you a bad witness. 

4) Did you talk to anyone about the case before coming here today to testify? When the defense attorney 

words it this way, it sure seems like the answer should 

be “no.” However, it obviously should be “yes.” You 

should have talked with your fellow officers to make 

sure that there is no detail which you have forgotten. 

You should also have met with the prosecutor and discussed your testimony in great detail. 

Mr. Keith Hunsucker is currently a Senior Instructor in the Legal Division. He is a graduate 

of the University of Akron (B.A., cum laude, 

1984), and the University of Akron School of 

Law (J.D., cum laude, 1987). Prior to coming to FLETC, Mr. Hunsucker was an attorney 

with the U.S. Department of Justice for over 

ten years. During this time he questioned thousands of witnesses in the courtroom. He has 

received numerous commendations, including 

being selected the 1994 Immigration and Naturalization Service Attorney of the Year.

Take ample time to critically review the entire case, 

and bring any procedural mistakes or evidentiary 

weaknesses to the attention of the prosecutor. Never 

assume the prosecutor is aware of these weaknesses 

or keep quiet in the hope the defense won’t discover 

them. You and the prosecutor are on the same team, 

and it is essential you communicate freely with one 

another to present the best possible case. Contrary to 

being wrong, this type of preparation is essential to 

being a good witness.

Review your answers to the above questions. You are 

confident of the defendant’s guilt. You are neither a 

liar nor a criminal, but a credible professional. You 

have reviewed the facts of the case and are thoroughly 

familiar with them. Good luck, you are now mentally 

ready to testify. 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 37

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) partners with more than 80 Federal 

law enforcement agencies, but can you name 

them all? It might help to know that 31 of them are Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). The Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy (IG Academy) is 

similar to FLETC, though on a smaller scale, in that it 

serves multiple agencies with different missions. The 

IG Academy has more than 60 partners who share its 

vision to improve integrity, accountability, and excellence in government. The mission of the IG Academy 

is to train those who protect our nation’s taxpayers 

from fraud, waste, and abuse. 

In the 1970s, government scandals, oil shortages, and 

stories of corruption in the media took a toll on the 

American public’s faith in its government. The U.S. 

Congress knew it had to take action to restore the public’s trust. Federal programs and operations needed 

more oversight. The people expected its Government 

to run with economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, but 

there wasn’t an independent set of “eyes and ears” in 

The G Acad

Training the Inspector General 

by Angela Hrdlicka
38 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

place to evaluate and promote the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs. 

In response, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the 

landmark legislation known as the Inspector General 

Act of 1978 (IG Act). The IG Act created independent 

Inspectors General (IG), who would: 

o Protect the integrity of government

o Improve program efficiency and effectiveness

o Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in 

federal agencies

o Keep agency heads, Congress, and the American 

people informed of their findings 

Congress has amended the IG Act several times since 

1978, progressively broadening the authority of the 

IGs and extending the statute to cover more federal 

agencies. In 2003, the Homeland Security Act granted 

statutory law enforcement authority to Presidentiallyappointed OIGs. 

Today, 63 agencies have statutorily authorized IGs. 

Twenty-nine of them are Presidentially-appointed IGs, 

and are members of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), which was created by Executive Order 12301 in 1981. The remaining 34 IGs 

are appointed by their agency heads and are members 

of the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

(ECIE). Executive Order 12805 created the ECIE in 

1992. Most of the ECIE IGs do not have statutory law 

enforcement authority, but are granted access to FLETC 

through their partnership with the IG Academy. The IG 

Academy trains OIG investigators and other personnel 

from both the PCIE and ECIE organizations. 

Federal agencies make more than $2 trillion in payments to individuals and a variety of other entities each 

year. An improper payment occurs when the funds go 

to the wrong recipient, the recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds, or the recipient uses the funds 

in an improper manner. According to the Office of 

Management and Budget, in fiscal year (FY) 2006 the 

reported rate of improper payments was 2.9 percent, or 

more than $40 billion. One could assume that the actual rate of improper payments is significantly higher 

than is reported. In FY 2006, according to the PCIE/

ECIE’s Progress Report to the President, OIG activities resulted in $6.8 billion in investigative recoveries, 

8,400 successful prosecutions, and more than 24,000 

closed investigations. The most frequent subjects of 

OIG investigations are recipients of government benefits, contractors, grant recipients, and federal emToday, 63 agencies have 

statutorily authorized IGs. 

Twenty-nine of them are 

presidentially-appointed

IGs, and are members of 

the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 39

ployees. OIG investigations and audits often result in 

recommendations to strengthen financial management 

controls so that federal agencies can better detect and 

prevent improper payments, helping to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. 

The IG Academy was officially established at FLETC, 

Glynco, Georgia, in February 1994 per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FLETC and 

the PCIE. The MOU acknowledged “the significant 

benefits of efficiency and effectiveness which are derived from a consolidated approach to training.” In 

November 2000, the IG Criminal Investigator Academy was established in Public Law 106-422 “for the 

purpose of performing investigator training services 

for Offices of Inspectors General created under the 

Inspector General Act of 1978.” The Investigations 

Committee of the PCIE is recognized as the board of 

directors for the IG Academy, subject to general review 

and oversight of the PCIE. The IG Academy Director 

is designated as the agency representative at FLETC 

for the PCIE/ECIE members that do not have onsite 

agency representation. 

Although the IG Academy formerly enjoyed a staff of 

17, in the aftermath of a failed restructuring in 2006, 

the future of the IG Academy was uncertain. FLETC 

management went above and beyond to support the 

remaining staff and helped ensure the IG Academy 

would train another day. The current staff includes 

four energetic employees from four different agencies, 

detailed to the IG Academy at FLETC/Glynco. These 

motivated individuals are dedicated to serving the IG 

community’s training needs. The IG Academy strives 

to develop and deliver quality, timely, and cost-effective training that will enable its partners to accomplish 

their missions. The IG Academy enjoys the support 

of many experienced subject matter experts in the field 

who willingly share their expertise as facilitators and 

instructors. The IG Academy is also fortunate to reside 

at FLETC/Glynco, where it takes full advantage of the 

world class training facilities, role players, instructor 

staff, and support. 

Ms. Angela Hrdlicka has been a criminal investigator since 1990, when she began her law 

enforcement career with the U.S. Secret 

Service in their Washington Field Office. She 

was also assigned to their Intelligence Division 

and the James J. Rowley Training Center at 

Beltsville, MD, and FLETC/Glynco. She has 

been a law enforcement trainer since 1999. As 

the Executive Director of the IG Academy since 

August 2006, she is responsible for the development and administration of law enforcement 

training for more than 60 Offices of Inspectors 

General. She received her B.A. degree from 

Duke University in 1988.

FLETC management went 

above and beyond to support

the [IG] staff and helped 

ensure the IG Academy would 

train another day. The current 

staff includes four energetic 

employees from four

different agencies.
40 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

Along with a befuddled look of bewilderment, 

this is the verbal reaction of many shooters 

as they look at their targets after the firing 

of several rounds. This look is even more profound 

when shooting at longer distances. It is difficult for the 

shooter to fathom what has just happened, everything 

looked good, or so they thought when the gun went off. 

However, the “proof is in the pudding.” The impact 

holes that they see (or don’t see!) indicate where the 

sights were when the shot broke. The targets don’t lie. 

While we can’t read the shooters minds, their reactions 

via their body language and facial expressions show 

exactly what they are thinking ... I don’t get it.

In Volume 1, Issue 2 of the FLETC Journal, my article 

entitled, “Talk to Yourself ... Are You Crazy??,” addressed the shooter error of anticipation and offered a 

suggestion on overcoming this normal human reaction 

that many shooters experience. Anticipation is where 

they brace themselves in preparation for the “explosion” that is about to take place between their hands 

and they push into the weapon and move the sights out 

of alignment. 

This article continues the topic of shooter errors and 

how to correct them. Analyzing and correcting shooters 

is not difficult; however, it does require understanding 

the fundamentals of marksmanship and the ability to 

“Hey

What’s Up With That??

by Darrell R. Walker
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 41

convey “constructive correction.” Just telling someone to hold the gun a certain way, use the sights, and 

not “jerk” the trigger is not enough. The shooter can’t 

correct what they don’t understand. Correction can 

sometimes be achieved when the shooter observes a 

demonstration by an individual with a patient demeanor, who “rolled up his or her sleeves,” and allowed the 

shooter to experience proper grip, sight alignment, or 

trigger control. Because shooting is such a mental process, yelling at someone for not hitting the center of the 

target is not conducive to achieving a positive response 

and outcome. This is one of the lessons we learned from 

the “Survival Scores Research Project.” This research 

identified the importance of how the instructor provided feedback. Those students who received supportive constructive feedback 

performed better than 

those who received “lectures” from the instructor. However, this does 

not mean that an instructor should not be “firm” 

with the shooter and point 

out necessary correction. 

This is especially true if 

it is determined that the 

shooter is not individually 

motivated to apply the 

techniques shown.

First hand instructor observation is certainly the 

preferred method of identifying the shooter’s “errors 

of his/her ways.” Watching a shooter’s hands can 

more often than not tell the 

whole story. Watching the hands allows for scrutiny of 

the grip, trigger finger placement, and follow through. 

It also provides an opportunity to examine if any “extracurricular activity” is taking place during the act of 

shooting. This “extracurricular activity” can consist 

of hand separation during recoil, squeezing or pulling 

with either the strong hand fingers or support hand fingers during the manipulation of the trigger. The recommended grip is thumbs forward, support thumb high on 

the frame, and both thumbs pointed in the direction of 

the muzzle at the target, with the palms of the hands 

providing the pressure on the stocks. The trigger finger 

obtains contact with the trigger in the middle of the 

first pad. Shooters should be instructed to keep contact 

with the trigger and not take the finger off the trigger 

after the shot goes off and then the subsequent trigger 

reset. If contact is lost after the shot breaks during the 

rapidly evolving process of making multiple shots, the 

shooter risks not being able to control the trigger pull 

when contact is reestablished during the next shooting 

cycle. When contact is lost, the shooter is prone to 

snapping or, as it is commonly referred to, “jerking” 

the trigger. The instructor needs to help the shooter understand that it takes less pressure to pull the trigger 

after the initial shot and the trigger is reset for second, 

third shots, etc. Pulling the trigger after the reset with 

the same amount of pressure used on the first shot can 

cause the sights to move 

out of alignment. Careful 

observation of the shooter’s trigger manipulation 

allows for this diagnosis. When abrupt trigger 

manipulations change 

the sight alignment the 

rounds will impact the 

target somewhere other 

than where the student’s 

sights were originally 

lined up. 

Another observed issue, 

is after the shot breaks 

and during recoil, the 

shooter’s support hand 

separates from the gun 

or the gun flops in the 

strong hand because there 

is insufficient pressure 

when forming the grip. When this happens, the shooter 

readjusts his/her hands on the gun between shots and 

because it is in the active shooting cycle there is a very 

good chance that the hands do not go back where they 

began, or belong. Now there is a possibility that the 

hands are placed on the gun differently, and if the observed issue is strong hand related, the location of the 

finger on the trigger could also change. Now with more 

or less finger on the trigger a new shooter error issue 

has developed. Changes in finger placement can cause 

the shooter to manipulate or pull the trigger (sideways) 

to the strong side if too much finger is on the trigger, 

Because shooting is such 

a mental process, yelling 

at someone for not hitting 

the center of the target is 

not conducive to achieving 

a positive response and 

outcome... Those students

who received supportive 

constructive feedback performed 

better than those who received 

“lectures” from instructors.
42 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

or push the trigger (sideways) toward the support side 

if too little finger is on the trigger. In other words, 

there is a definite possibility that if the trigger finger 

has lost contact with the trigger or hand separation 

has occurred during recoil that the readjusting of the 

hands on the gun could cause trigger finger fluctuation. 

Marksmanship requires consistency in grip, trigger 

manipulation, and sight alignment. Changes in any of 

these components either during or between shots cause 

expanded or inconsistent groups. 

Dry-fire exercises are essential training for the shooter 

to get repetitive opportunities to practice many of the 

fundamentals of marksmanship. One dry-fire exercise 

that I include in my class training sessions is trigger 

reset drills. Two students are paired up and one is the 

“shooter” and the other is the “slide operator and criti-

cal observer.” On command the shooter draws, pres-

ents the weapon toward the threat area, while obtaining 

sight alignment and sight picture coupled with the pull-

ing of the trigger under control. When the arms get to a 

natural point of extension the “simulated” shot breaks 
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 43

as the hammer or striker falls. Immediately after that, 

the student observer works the slide to allow the shooter 

to practice trigger reset while re-acquiring sight alignment. The trigger reset drill incorporates the following 

fundamentals: stance, grip, sight alignment, and trigger control. When the slide is worked, the shooter will 

“rock” back on their heels if their stance and weight 

distribution is incorrect, and it can identify if their grip 

breaks during this action as well. It also helps with the 

draw and weapon presentation. Many essential skills 

can be identified if they are flawed and then corrected 

when this exercise is performed properly. All this is 

accomplished without firing a live round. This dry-fire 

exercise also benefits the “slide operator” by developing critical observation skills.

Another issue to look for is the squeezing or pulling 

with either the strong hand fingers or support hand 

fingers during the manipulation of the trigger. This 

is an unconscious activity that shooters usually don’t 

recognize on their own unless it is brought to their attention by a keen observer. By focusing on the shooter’s wrists, it can be observed if squeezing or pulling 

is taking place. The initial trigger pull is often harder 

and longer than after the trigger reset. Because of this, 

shooters may squeeze their strong hand fingers in order 

to “assist” with the pulling of the trigger. This causes 

the front sight to be pulled out of alignment and the 

shot impacting to the shooter’s strong side of the target. Another possibility of shooter error is the pulling 

of the support hand fingers during the manipulation of 

the trigger which causes the shots to impact the target 

on their support side. Impact holes that are high on the 

target could be the heeling of the handgun by pushing 

the heel of the hand into the back of the pistol grip during the trigger manipulation. Grip consistency is essential, and the keen observation of the shooters hands 

cannot be stressed enough. These “extracurricular activities,” which is doing anything with the hands other 

than firmly holding the gun, cause the sights to move 

out of alignment. 

When the opportunity to observe a shooter’s performance is not readily available, target analysis can be 

a useful tool to diagnose mistakes and offer solutions. 

Target analysis, when used in conjunction with shooter 

observation, can substantiate the shooter’s error diagnosis. Earlier in this article, it was mentioned how 

shots impact the target to the shooter’s strong or support side. During target analysis, shot placement on 

the target is commonly compared to time on a clock. 

An example of this is when a right-handed shooter is 

pulling with his/her support fingers, the rounds impact 

around nine o’clock, and it would be three o’clock if a 

left-handed shooter did the same thing. 

If trigger manipulation error or hand movement during shooting is identified, “constructive correction,” a 

comprehensible explanation, all used collectively with 

a hands-on visual demonstration for the shooter, will 

go a long way to eliminate the shooter errors described 

in this article. 

The next article will touch on sight alignment, sight 

picture, and follow through ... all important for accurate shooting.

Mr. Darrell R. Walker has a Bachelors Degree 

from Niagara University and has served in 

several capacities in both Federal and local law 

enforcement for twenty-one years. Darrell is 

currently a Senior Instructor in the Firearms 

Division at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) where he teaches 

marksmanship and the tactical applications of 

firearms during law enforcement encounters. 

Darrell has provided instruction at the FLETC 

in both Basic and Advanced firearms training 

for over twelve years. Presently, Darrell is the 

firearms division representative for both the 

Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) 

and Uniform Police Training Program (UPTP).
The Right Kind o

Feedback

By Dr. Terry Wollert

44 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 45

Introduction

Your students have just completed a reality-based, 

force-on-force training scenario. You blow the whistle, 

and yell “Out of Role.” Now, what should your next 

step be? A key element of any training exercise is the 

incorporation of feedback as part of the instructional 

process. Well-defined and delivered feedback can increase learning as well as provide for a comprehensive 

scenario evaluation. The student’s perception of their 

ability is directly influenced by the instructor both verbally and non-verbally, prior to, during, and after the 

scenario. This influence can have a positive or negative effect on future performance depending on the 

instructor’s ability to provide effective feedback. Effective feedback enhances the training experience and 

the student’s ability to produce the desired result by 

increasing the student’s confidence and competence to 

perform similar tasks in the future. 

This article provides law enforcement trainers with 

insight concerning feedback, evaluation tools, and 

techniques to improve student performance. These 

techniques are an outcome of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s (FLETC) Survival 

Scores Research Project (SSRP). The SSRP is ongoing research on human performance during dynamic, 

high-risk, law enforcement scenarios that objectively 

measures use of force decisions and applications. The 

“Student Centered Feedback” model presented here is 

part of the Scenario Training Assessment and Review 

or “STAR” performance assessment model. The article 

discusses (a) student pre-brief, (b) performance observation, (c) performance evaluation and documentation, 

(d) a method of reviewing the experience in order that 

learning can be derived (e.g., an ‘after action review’) 

as basic tools in a trainer’s toolkit to improve student 

performance during reality-based training scenarios. 

Background

Literature reviews on how feedback improves training 

are readily available; however, most studies focus on 

the type of information feedback to the student rather 

than the process by which the instructor presents the 

information. A common theme throughout the literature review suggests that individualized, formative 

feedback offers the most promising way of improving 
46 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

the student’s performance. This requires information 

about observing, documenting, and summarizing a 

student’s performance, which is then fed back to the 

student. Li, Lee, Purvis, & Chu (2007) identified that 

the amount, content, frequency, precision, and type 

of feedback were the critical components of effective 

training feedback. They also reported that feedback 

that focuses on student performance rather than the 

outcome of the performance provides a more effective 

skill development. The STAR process actively engages 

the student in higher order learning (thinking, problem 

solving, and reasoning) through analysis, synthesis, 

and evaluation. The techniques associated with “Student Centered Feedback” reflect a Socratic Method 

of teaching. Paraskevas & Wickens (2003) describe 

the Socratic Method as a form of structured discourse 

using systematic questions, inductive thinking, and the 

formulization of general definitions with more emphasis on the process and less on content. By developing 

these skills, students can expand their experience as 

well as prepare themselves to solve a wider range of 

complex problems and issues. By keeping students 

actively engaged there is a better chance they will 

retain these abilities and experiences than if they had 

received the information in a more passive manner. Effective student centered feedback requires a combination of qualities, skills, and some type of structure. Ultimately, feedback is about communication. The skills 

are generic: active listening; asking a balance of open, 

reflective, facilitating, and open-ended questions; challenging; and summarizing. Giving student centered 

feedback requires more than just providing judgment 

or an evaluation. Wollert, (1990) identified observing, 

listening, and communicating as three critical feedback skills in the development of a trainer. Rodgers 

(2006), identified fighting back the urge to fix along 

with observing, listening, and communication as part 

of an effective feedback session. 

The design of the STAR process is an active training 

style that builds upon the student’s strengths while 

correcting performance deficiencies. It is to provide 

insight. Without insight into their own strengths and 

limitations, students cannot progress or resolve difficulties. Thus, key instructor skills are to listen and 

ask; not, as is often the temptation, to tell and provide 

solutions. 

Student Pre-brief

The FLETC model for Student Centered Feedback 

starts with the instructor providing a pre-brief of the 

scenario that the student is about to experience. Because this is only a training environment, it is essential 

that the instructor establish the significant factors the 

student would have known if this were an on-the-job 

encounter. These factors include the role the student has 

during the exercise, suspect description, radio/phone 

communication requirements, scenario conditions 

(i.e., time of day, facility information, etc.), and other 

relevant information (i.e., administer an arrest warrant, 

routine patrol, witness interview, etc.). The pre-brief is 

a canned statement to establish essential scenario parameters for totality of circumstances. The pre-brief is 

also an excellent opportunity to review specific skills 

the student needs to be developing. Instructors need to 

resist the temptation of providing too much information. The focus of the pre-brief is to provide information the student would know prior to beginning a scenario but not information they should obtain through 

observation or communications. It is important that the 

pre-brief not change from student to student. Reading 

a canned statement makes the pre-brief the same for 

each student. This process limits “coaching” the student through the scenario ahead of time.

Performance Observation

Prior to the scenario, the instructor must allow time 

for preparation steps. Preparation starts with a review 

the applicable lesson plan(s) and scenario guides to 

identify expected student behaviors. This will provide 

the instructor with critical information to ensure they 

can effectively administer the scenario. This review 

By keeping students actively 

engaged there is a better chance 

they will retain these abilities 

and experiences than if they

had received the information

in a more passive manner.
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 47

also identifies guidelines to ensure that role-players 

are prepared to act in accordance with the lesson plan. 

Becoming familiar with the scenario and essential student behaviors helps the instructor identify observation 

positions that will provide an optimum vantage point 

without interfering with the student or role-players actions. When possible select a position near to the side 

(left or right) and slightly in front of the student facing 

at a 45-degree angle to the student. Risk, student capability, expected behaviors, and the dynamics of the scenario determine the distance between the instructor and 

student. The more familiar the instructor becomes with 

the scenario the better they are prepared to observe the 

student. Remember, the student’s focus should be on 

the role-players and not the instructor.

Performance Evaluation and Documentation

To complete this phase of the process, the instructor must be familiar with the score sheet and possess 

trained observation skills in order to document the 

subject’s performance. It is unreasonable to expect 

perfect performance for a successful outcome. However, it is critical that the student demonstrate the critical knowledge and skills associated with the performance objective associated with the scenario. Clearly 

defining performance expectations before the student 

participates is critical to evaluate the student’s performance during scenarios. It is possible to have observed 

these students demonstrate their capability during individual skills assessments. However, these individual 

skill demonstrations typically do not account for the 

environmental difference in what it takes to perform 

these tasks under the conditions imposed by the job. 

Environmental difference is the degree that equipment, 

motion cues, visual cues, and other sensory information match the real-world task. An example of environmental difference is shooting a qualification course 

of fire in a training environment versus what it takes 

to perform the task of engaging an active shooter in 

a hazardous or high-demand environment, such as a 

school setting. Both tasks require target engagement 

however scoring center mass hits on a moving target 

that is shooting back is considerably more stressful and 

difficult. 

Effective scenario objectives reflect a realistic encounter and require students to make decisions and apply a 

variety of tactics under dynamic conditions. The performance evaluation criteria should reflect the actions 

as a reasonable officer. Establishing the evaluation 

criteria for successful completion requires identifying expected student action/sequence of events (what 

is going to happen), student performance stimulus 

(when/cues it is going to happen), and expected student performance-evaluation criteria (how the student 

is expected to respond). The assessment scale used 

during the SSRP for scoring the student’s performance 

used the following scale:

Using a risk based rating scale allows for less than perfect performance, and scores the student on the level 

of risk associated with their actions. An example of 

this type of rating would award the student with a “4” 

(Desirable) if they successfully and timely performed 

a “Tap, Rack, and Ready” during a weapon malfunction requiring a primary immediate action procedure. 

Rating Description

0. not applicable does not apply or is not 

observable, 

1. not acceptable actions are not consistent with 

legal standard, creates significant risk, or did not perform, 

2. least desirable actions generally acceptable but 

create identifiable risks,

3. acceptable actions are consistent with 

training but not most effective 

method or tactic, and 

4. desirable actions demonstrate sound and 

effective tactics. 
48 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

They would receive a “3” (Acceptable) if they cleared 

the malfunction in a timely manner but failed to “Tap” 

before racking the slide. They would receive a “2” 

(Least Desirable) if they failed to recognize the weapon malfunction in a timely manner or took an extended 

amount of time to clear the malfunction and re-engage. 

They would receive a “1” (Not Acceptable) if they required multiple attempts or failed to clear the weapon. 

The student’s performance for both labs and practical 

exercises should be recorded on an evaluation form. 

The evaluation form should allow for documenting 

instructor comments. The combination of the risk assessment and instructor comments facilitates the debriefing process. Documenting student performance 

also assists in keeping the feedback focused on critical 

performance issues.

Reviewing the Experience

The STAR’s Student-Centered Feedback is a systematic approach for encouraging participants to reflect on 

their experience and share their insights. An underlying principle of feedback is that students tend to selfregulate and actively seek information to assess their 

progress and performance (Bandura, 1986). Ken Murray (2004), in his book Training at the Speed of Life, 

emphasized that the purpose of reality-based training 

scenario feedback is to develop student confidence and 

competence. 

The Student-Centered Feedback model has four distinct steps and is used at the conclusion of the scenario. 

The first step the instructor takes is to ask the students 

to identify their actions during the scenario. Generally, this starts by asking the student, “From the time 

you began the scenario until we started this debriefing, describe what happened?” The instructor may ask 

other leading questions such as; “How did you become 

involved?”, “What information did you collect prior to 

arriving on the scene?”, and “What was your initial assessment of the situation?” Using a structured series of 

open-ended questions will help to focus the student on 

what they did and why they did it. The purpose of this 

phase of the model is to allow the students to identify 

their actions and for the instructor to get a feel of the 

subject’s perception of the situation and why they chose 

their actions. A good trainer must be able to recognize 

the nonverbal signals, body posture of the student, 

and their words in order to assess the thinking behind 

the response as well as its truthfulness (Stone, 1999). 

Such information is important to determine how and 

why the student is making decisions, identifying skill 

or knowledge deficiency, or confusion on how to do a 

particular task. Ericsson and Simon (1980) indicated 

that “verbal probing” (open ended interview questions) 

is an effective technique to gain an understanding of 

the cognitive processes employed during the activity. 

More specifically, they specified a technique called 

“retrospective verbalization” where the instructor asks 

students to describe their actions immediately after the 

exercise. They recommend this as a means of probing 

without affecting the performance during the exercise 

and for conducting critical incident debriefings. The 

premise of this segment is not to pass judgment but 

to retrieve information. Rodgers (2007) stressed that 

instructors must establish an environment where the 

feedback is about the student’s learning and not the 

instructor’s teaching in order to establish a trusting 

relationship. She further suggests that while instructors can use written, oral or both feedback techniques, 

the use of oral verbalization opens the discussion to 

follow-on questions and often leads to solutions that 

are more creative. Instructors can also conduct these 

sessions one-on-one or in groups. 

Once students have identified what they did and why 

they did it, the instructor initiates the second step by 

asking what the strengths of their performance were 

during the scenario. In other words, what they did well. 

The purpose of this phase is twofold. One is to guide 

students down the path that focuses on the positive aspects of their performance. This makes the feedback 

session a positive and fruitful learning experience. 

The second purpose is to identify if students thought 

they were performing elements well, and if they recog-
FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008 49

nized that there were areas that needed improvement. 

This allows the instructor to provide reinforcement for 

those areas where the student has performed well, and 

correct any student misconceptions. 

The third step of the model focuses on areas for improvement. During this time, the instructor will present 

the student with the question, “If you were to encounter this scenario again, what would you do differently?” This allows students to relive the experience and 

identify their own ways to improve their performance. 

This technique encourages the student to examine 

their actions while developing critical problem solving 

skills. Again, the trainer has an opportunity to correct 

misconceptions and provide additional corrections as 

necessary.

The last step of the model is to identify alternate solutions. It is important during this time that instructors 

not identify too many alternate solutions. The focus 

needs to be on one or two alternate solutions and allow 

the subject to do some problem solving and planning. 

This is also a time to provide an opportunity for the 

student to ask questions on areas that they are uncertain. At the conclusion of this final step, the instructor 

should focus on lessons learned and identify goals for 

improvement. The feedback process begins again on 

the next activity, or retest on a similar scenario, to correct any identified performance issues.

Conclusion

The feedback session should begin with non-judgmental statement that asks the student to provide an account 

of the scenario. Using a statement like, “From the time 

you began the scenario until we started this debriefing, 

describe what happened?” will provide insight to the 

student’s perspective of the scenario. Student-Centered 

Feedback is designed to reinforce or change behavior. 

Dr. Wood (2000) offers these suggestions to produce a 

more positive effect on students’ performance: 

• Comments should be based on observable behavior 

and not on assumed intentions or interpretations

• Positive comments may be provided first to give the 

learner confidence

• Feedback should emphasize the sharing of information; both parties contribute

• Feedback should be given at an appropriate time 

and place

• Feedback should include specific, subjective data 

but not so detailed or broad as to overload the 

learner

• Feedback should deal with behaviors the learner 

can control and modify; it should deal with decisions and actions

• Learners should be asked to verify feedback

• Feedback requires preparation and the ability to tolerate discomfort and criticism

In addition to Dr. Wood’s suggestions, formally documenting both positive and negative issues that arise 

throughout the observed performance is important. 

Excuses such as, “too little time to provide praise or 

corrective feedback,” tell the student that the instructor 

believes that he or she is not capable of doing the work 

right (Stone, 1999). The role of the instructor is to communicate openly and honestly about any performance 

issues. Students appreciate feedback that is specific to 

their performance and disregard nonspecific evaluative 

feedback (e.g. ‘good job’) (Moorhead, Maguire, Thoo, 

2004). The quality of the training encounter is clearly 

linked to feedback. Effective feedback should illustrate the student’s effective and ineffective behaviors 

as well as providing guidance on how to improve their 

performance. 

The techniques associated with Student-Centered 

Feedback actively engage the student in higher order 

learning through analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. 

Student-Centered Feedback reflects a Socratic Method 

The focus needs to be on

one or two alternate solutions 

and allow the subject to do

some problem solving

and planning.
50 FLETC Journal ✤ Spring 2008

of teaching using systematic questions, inductive thinking, and the formulization of general definitions with 

more emphasis on process and less on content. Student 

centered feedback emphasized critical thinking, problem solving, and creative solutions. The instructor’s 

role during Student-Centered Feedback is to facilitate 

knowledge development. By developing these skills, 

students can expand their experience and prepare themselves to solve a wider range of complex problems and 

issues. Ultimately, feedback is about communication. 

The primary communicator during Student-Centered 

Feedback is the student, thereby providing an active 

learning environment to build confidence. While being 

supportive, the instructor provides corrective feedback 

to the subject to develop competence. The instructor’s 

focus is on critical subject performance deficiencies 

and allows the subject to identify possible corrective 

actions. During the SSRP students receiving StudentCentered Feedback demonstrated a more adaptive pattern of behavior exerted more effort, and persisted in 

the face of difficulty.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: WH Freeman, New York.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. 

(1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 

100(3), 363-406.

Li, W., Solmon, M. A., Lee, A. M., Purvis, G., & Chu, 

H. (2007). Examining the relationships between students’ implicit theories of ability, goal orientations and 

the preferred type of augmented feedback. Journal of 

Sport Behavior, 30(3), 280-291.

Moorhead, R., Maguire, P., & Thoo, S. L. (2004). Giving feedback to learners in the practice. Australian 

Family Physician, 33(9), 691 - 694.

Murray, K. R. (2004). Training at the speed of life (Vol. 

1). Gotha: Armiger Publications.

Paraskevas, A., & Wickens, E. (2003). Andragogy and 

the socratic method: The adult learner perspective. 

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 2(2), 4–14.

Rodgers, C. R. (2006). Attending to student voice: 

The impact of descriptive feedback on learning and 

teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209-237.

Stone, F. (1999). Coaching, counseling & mentoring: 

How to choose & use the right technique to boost employee performance. New York: American Management Association.

Wollert, T. N. (1990). Certification of instructional 

competence of nuclear training specialist. Unpublished 

Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Wood, B. P. (2000). A key feature of medical training 

many diverse methods of instruction are used throughout a training experience, but the most available and 

influential method of learning probably is feedback. 

Radiology, Oak Brook, IL, 215(1), 17-21.

Dr. Terry N. Wollert is a senior researcher with 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s (FLETC) Training Innovation Division 

(TID) Research Branch. Until joining the TID 

Terry served two years as a Program Manager 

with the Office of Accreditation. Since joining 

FLETC, Terry has supported the instructional 

programs offered by the Firearms Division, 

Driver and Marine Division, Financial Fraud 

Institute, and the FLETC Management Institute. Terry served as a member of the Tactical 

Oversight Board (TOB) and as the Vice-Chairman of the FLETC Lessons Learned Committee. Terry has undergraduate degrees in 

electronic technology, computer science, and 

technical education. He has a Masters Degree in education psychology/technology and 

a Ph.D. in vocational technical education from 

Colorado State University.
DHS Deputy Secretary (Acting) 

Paul Schneider visited FLETC 

Glynco in January at the invitation 

of FLETC Director Connie 

Patrick. While he is somewhat 

familar with the FLETC, this is his 

first visit. The Deputy Secretary 

observed several demonstrations 

all at the FLETC headquarters, and 

met with the FLETC Executive 

Team and on-site Partner 

Organization representatives.

The Driver Marine (DMD) and 

Counterterrorism (CTD) Divisions 

gave a joint training demonstration 

at the Counterrorism Operations 

Facility’s International Site for 

the DHS official. The Deputy 

Secretary was able to observe 

Customs and Border Protection 

trainees during their final practical 

exam at the Port of Entry. Deputy 

Secretary Schneider was also 

briefed on FLETC programs at the 

Simulations Laboratory and the 

Flying While Armed training area.

Tour Moments

DHS Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider enjoys fltc  
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Glynco, GA • Artesia, NM • Charleston, SC • Cheltenham, MD 

www.fletc.gov