Leading the Witness — What to Listen for During a Police Interview
July 17, 2026 | Freeport, IL
As we continue examining police interviews in the Traveontaye Berry Investigation, understanding who introduces critical information — the interviewer or the person being questioned — can provide important context.
When most people hear the phrase “leading the witness,” they probably picture a courtroom — an attorney asks a question, the opposing attorney objects and the judge makes a ruling.
But leading questions can also become important when officers and detectives interview witnesses, victims and suspects during a criminal investigation.
As F4F continues reviewing police interviews and recorded statements, understanding the difference between asking someone what happened and suggesting what happened is important.
What Is a Leading Question?
A leading question is a question that suggests or introduces the answer the interviewer expects or wants confirmed.
For example:
Open-ended:
“What did you see?”
Leading:
“You saw him with the gun, right?”
The difference is important.
In the first question, the witness provides the information.
In the second, the interviewer introduces the gun and who allegedly had it — then asks the witness to agree.
That raises an important question:
Did the witness independently provide that information, or did the information first come from the interviewer?
Leading Questions Are Not Automatically Improper
The fact that an officer asks a leading question does not automatically mean the officer did anything illegal, unethical or intentionally wrong.
Police interviews are not the same as courtroom testimony.
Investigators may ask direct or leading questions to clarify information, confirm something a witness already said, challenge inconsistencies or confront a suspect.
Context and sequence matter.
Consider the difference:
A witness says, “I saw Mike pull out a gun.”
The detective asks, “And you're certain it was Mike?”
The detective is confirming information the witness already provided.
But what if the witness says, “Everything happened so fast. I don't know who had what.”
And the detective responds, “But Mike was the one with the gun, wasn't he?”
Now the detective has introduced a critical detail that did not originate with the witness.
That doesn't automatically make the witness's eventual answer false.
But it does make the sequence of the interview important.
When the Interviewer Starts Telling the Story
One thing to watch for is whether the person being interviewed is actually providing the story — or simply agreeing with a story being presented to them.
Consider this exchange:
Detective: “So they were arguing?”
Witness: “Yeah.”
Detective: “Then he got angry?”
Witness: “Yeah.”
Detective: “That's when he grabbed the gun?”
Witness: “Yeah.”
Detective: “And then he fired?”
Witness: “Yeah.”
A later summary might say the witness stated that the suspect became angry, grabbed a gun and fired.
But when you listen to the actual interview, an important distinction emerges:
Did the witness actually provide those details — or did the detective provide the narrative while the witness agreed?
That is why the actual interview can sometimes provide important context that a written summary cannot.
Leading Can Be Subtle
Not every leading question is obvious.
An interviewer might ask:
“Was the car black or blue?”
But what if the car was green?
By offering only two choices, the question has already narrowed the possible answer.
The same applies to questions such as:
“Was it John or Mike who had the gun?”
That question assumes one of them had it.
A more neutral question would be:
“Who, if anyone, did you see with a gun?”
The wording may seem like a small difference.
It isn't.
The way a question is asked can influence the answer a person gives.
What If a Witness Changes Their Story?
Witnesses can change their accounts for many reasons.
People forget details. They become frightened. They misunderstand questions. They remember something later. They correct themselves. And sometimes people simply do not tell the truth.
A changed story does not automatically mean police influenced the witness.
But when a witness's account changes, the sequence becomes important.
What did the witness originally say?
What details did they volunteer on their own?
What questions were asked before their story changed?
Did investigators introduce new information?
Did the witness begin repeating that information afterward?
Was the witness told what someone else allegedly said?
These questions help establish where information originated and how a witness's story developed over time.
Confirmation Bias
Another issue to understand is confirmation bias — the tendency to give more weight to information that supports what we already believe while overlooking information that challenges it.
Police officers and detectives can experience confirmation bias.
So can prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, journalists — and members of the public.
Imagine investigators develop an early theory that one particular person committed a crime.
From that point forward, compare these questions:
“What did he do next?”
versus:
“What happened next?”
Or:
“Why was he angry?”
versus:
“How was he acting?”
One seeks information.
The other begins with an assumption.
A thorough investigation should examine evidence that supports a theory — but also evidence that may challenge it.
The Most Important Question: Who Said It First?
When reviewing a police interview, one of the simplest questions can also be one of the most important:
Who introduced the information first?
If a witness independently says:
“I saw James standing by the back door with a gun.”
That is one thing.
If a detective says:
“James was standing by the back door with the gun, right?”
And the witness responds:
“Yeah.”
That is different.
It does not automatically mean the second statement is false.
But anyone evaluating the reliability of that statement should understand how the information entered the conversation.
What Should You Listen For?
When listening to a police interview, don't just listen to the answers.
Listen to the questions.
Pay attention to whether the witness is allowed to tell the story in their own words.
Listen for details introduced by investigators that the witness had not previously mentioned.
Watch for repeated questions followed by changing answers.
Notice assumptions built into questions.
And when an important detail emerges, ask:
Did the witness say it first?
Or did the officer?
The F4F Bottom Line
Leading questions are not automatically illegal. They are not automatically evidence of police misconduct. And they do not automatically make a witness's statement false. But how information is obtained matters — especially when that information becomes part of an investigation, arrest, prosecution or conviction.
When reviewing a police interview, don't only ask:
“What did the witness say?”
Also ask:
“How did the witness come to say it?”
Was the information volunteered? Was it clarified? Was it confirmed? Or was it suggested?
And perhaps most importantly:
Who said it first — the witness or the interviewer?
Because when trying to understand what actually happened, the questions can sometimes be just as important as the answers.
As you continue to join us in our Traveontaye Berry Investigation, we hope this information helps you better understand what you're hearing as you listen to the police interviews for yourself.
We also encourage you to go back and listen to the interviews we've already released — especially the interviews with Myleka Avery. Listen carefully to the questions being asked. Pay attention to the answers. Follow the sequence of the conversation and take note of who introduces important details first.
At Fighting4Freeport, our mission is to provide the public with the information and context needed to examine the facts for themselves while promoting Transparency, Integrity & Accountability in our community.
Listen to the interviews. Follow the questions. Examine the answers. Then decide for yourself.