Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE): Why It’s More Than Just Late Disclosure in Science-Based Interviewing
- Christian Cory
- May 19
- 14 min read
Updated: Jul 12
Strategic Use of Evidence, often shortened to SUE or the SUE Technique, is one of the most useful concepts in science-based interviewing and, at the same time, also one of the most misunderstood. Too often, it gets flattened into a single sound bite: it's late disclosure of evidence. That is a component of it. It is not all of it and you missed some of the biggest pieces.
SUE cannot be reduced to just late disclosure. It is about the questioning and evidence framing as well. In fact, the SUE reference guide describes it as an interviewing technique with both a questioning tactic and an evidence disclosure tactic. The method is meant to help the interviewer plan, structure, and conduct the interview in a way that reveals whether the interviewee is purposefully concealing critical facts, while also allowing the interviewer to corroborate the statement as the interview progresses, which goes directly to credibility. Actual credibility, not pseudoscience.
That distinction matters. If people hear “late disclosure” and skip the front end of the process, the planning and questioning, they miss the entire engine that makes SUE work. The power of SUE is not simply in revealing evidence later. The power is in planning and questioning first, then gathering a statement in a way that preserves detail, preserves contradictions, and preserves the interviewee’s own choices. That is where SUE begins.
What Strategic Use of Evidence actually is
At its core, SUE is a science-based method for using evidence strategically during an interview. The SUE questioning tactic is designed to allow truth tellers to be forthcoming while making it harder for deceptive interviewees to manage the facts through omission and denial. The SUE process helps produce statement-evidence inconsistencies. The disclosure tactic then reveals evidence gradually, moving from vague to specific, which can produce within-statement inconsistencies as the interviewee has to revise their story.
So the structure is not random. It is deliberate:
Plan
Gather
Test
Leverage evidence for information
Planning the Interview: Knowing the Evidence Before You Use It
Strategic Use of Evidence also forces something that every good interview needs but not every interview gets: planning and preparation. Before the interview begins, the interviewer should know what the evidence actually says, what it does not say, and how it fits into the larger case. That also means red teaming and challenging assumptions about the evidence itself, resisting the urge to read more into it than it supports, and testing whether the current interpretation is the only reasonable one. From there, the interviewer can study the evidence, understand its strengths and limits, and run it through the Evidence Framing Matrix so that, if and when disclosure becomes necessary, it can be done in a deliberate way that is more likely to elicit more useful case information. In that sense, SUE is not just an interview technique. It is also a planning discipline. It pushes investigators to prepare, know their case, question their assumptions, and think ahead about questioning and disclosure, all of which lead to stronger, cleaner, and more effective interviews.
Why the questioning phase matters so much
The SUE questioning sequence is: start with a free-recall prompt, move into broad questions that address the topic without disclosing the evidence, and then gradually narrow toward more specific questions. But that sequence does not begin in the room. It begins in planning. By this point, the interviewer should already have questioning objectives in mind: the things we need to know, the things we are curious about, and the areas where the statement can later be compared against known facts. Just as important, do not interrupt and do not reveal the evidence too early.
Funnel questioning matters for several reasons.
First, it helps preserve an uncontaminated statement. If the interviewer reveals too much too early, the interviewee can simply start reacting to the interviewer’s knowledge instead of committing to their version of events.
Second, it gives truthful people room to be forthcoming with more information. SUE is built on the idea that truthful and deceptive people often approach interviews differently. Deceptive interviewees tend to manage information through counter-interrogation strategies such as avoidance and escape, while truthful interviewees are generally more forthcoming.
Third, it creates the conditions for uncontaminated, corroborated statements. Because the interviewer planned ahead and identified the points that matter most, the account can be assessed as it develops. When a person gives their account before the evidence is laid out, the interviewer can compare the statement to what is already known, what still needs to be checked, and what may directly affect credibility.
That is the first half of the SUE technique, and it is the half many people skip when they reduce it to simply a late disclosure.
The disclosure phase is not “dump the evidence”
After questioning comes disclosure. But even here, SUE is more strategic than legacy confession-seeking methods. As investigators, we were often taught by legacy systems and step-by-step monstrosities to overcome objections with evidence so we could get a confession from a suspect. Sometimes we were instructed to pile up the evidence to get past this barrier and the suspect would see the "writing on the wall." This approach is not strategic whatsoever. In fact, it actually increases suspect resistance (Kelly et al., 2016) and it doesn't allow us to maximize the informational potential of our evidence. After any evidence is disclosed, we cannot unring that bell.
The disclosure tactic is withholding evidence during the interview and then gradually revealing it. The purpose is to produce more and more accurate case information. When evidence is disclosed toward the end, and when it is framed from vague to more specific, a deceptive interviewee may revise the account in ways that create fresh inconsistencies or corroborate what actually happened. Either way, you have more case information.
This is where the Evidence Framing Matrix (EFM) comes in. EFM is a tool used during disclosure to frame a piece of evidence across two dimensions: the source of the information, which can range from strong to weak, and the evidence itself, which can range from general to specific.evidence so
That means one piece of evidence can be framed in more than one way. Instead of presenting the strongest, most precise version immediately, the interviewer can work through planned framings that preserve uncertainty on the interviewee’s side and increase the chance of eliciting inconsistencies.
SUE is about better case information.
Example: Surveillance Video Through the Evidence Framing Matrix
Let’s say the actual evidence on a robbery of the Quicky Mart is this:
Actual evidence: a surveillance video showing the interviewee inside the Quicky Mart, on the night in question at 9:47 p.m., pointing a gun at the cashier.
Using the Evidence Framing Matrix, the interviewer would not jump straight to the strongest version. Instead, the same evidence is framed in three planned steps. Notice that after each step, there is a question. The goal is always information.
1. Bottom left, evidence framing matrix (A)
“We have information you were in the area of xyz intersection (adjacent to the business) that night.” Tell me about that.
This is the least precise framing. It is broad, indirect, and does not reveal the true strength of the evidence or even the evidence itself (uncontaminated).
2. Upper left, evidence framing matrix (B)
“We have information that you were at the Quicky Mart that night.” Explain that to me.
Now the framing becomes more location-specific, but it still does not disclose the full source or the most incriminating detail.
3. Upper right, evidence framing matrix (D)
“We have video showing you inside the Quicky Mart that night at 9:47 p.m. pointing a gun.” Help me understand that.
This is the strongest and most specific framing. It reveals both the source and the key fact shown by the evidence.
Why the Evidence Framing Matrix matters
The evidence itself has not changed. Only the framing has changed.
That is the value of the evidence framing matrix. By planning these three framings in advance, the interviewer can avoid wasting evidence too early and can move from broad to precise only if needed. That helps preserve the opportunity to gather the interviewee’s account first, test it as the interview progresses, and capture contradictions or revisions when the evidence is disclosed.
Same evidence. Three framings. More information.
“Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.” — Sun Tzu
Detecting Deception: Contradictions Matter More Than Demeanor
For years, I told detectives and officers the same thing: if you know it is a lie, keep letting them lie. It is still information. Too often, though, investigators feel the urge to prove a point in the moment. They want the interviewee to know, "I know you are lying." (note: calling an interviewee a liar might also get your interview video/transcript redacted in court. Not a smart play). That impulse usually pushes the interview toward a win-lose exchange and often leads to early evidence disclosure. When that happens, the focus can shift away from the case and toward the investigator’s need to score the point. That is rarely good for the interview and rarely good for the case. The goal is not to win the moment. The goal is to gather information, preserve contradictions, and build something useful for the people and the process you represent.
A lie is information when we can test it against known corroborated facts and evidence. If the statement and the evidence cannot both be true at the same time, the contradiction itself becomes meaningful. That is the basic idea of the law of non-contradiction, and it is one reason false exculpatory statements matter so much in a SUE interview. Better yet, it gives investigators something real to testify to: a documented contradiction between what was said and what the evidence shows. That is far stronger than relying on claims about lie detection through eye movements, body language, or microexpressions.
What the research says about timing and framing
The SUE literature has repeatedly found that early disclosure is not the strongest option when the goal is credibility assessment; in fact, it's statement contamination.
When evidence is available, late disclosure is preferable to early disclosure, and framing evidence in increments can outperform presenting it only in its strongest form. In the study summarized there, both late and tactical disclosure produced greater differences between liars and truth tellers on statement-evidence contradictions and within-statement inconsistencies than early disclosure did (Granhag et al., 2013).
The guide also summarizes early SUE work showing that when evidence was disclosed late rather than early, deceptive interviewees produced more inconsistencies, and observers were more accurate in judging deception in SUE interviews than in standard early-disclosure interviews.
That is the point of strategic disclosure. It is not simply to hold something back. It is to time and frame the evidence in a way that helps the interview itself do more diagnostic work.
SUE fits inside science-based interviewing
SUE should not be treated like a standalone gimmick. It belongs inside a broader science-based interviewing approach.
Field-validation studies report on practitioner-developed science-based interviewing and found that trained investigators increased their use of science-based tactics after training and that those methods were associated with greater cooperation, information disclosure, and admissions or confessions (Russano et al., 2024; Russano et al., 2026). Those same reports describe the broader model as including productive questioning, rapport, cognitive interviewing methods, and strategic use of evidence. It also notes that research has suggested late disclosure of strong evidence is most likely to produce a confession and facilitate the elicitation of statement-evidence inconsistencies, while gradual disclosure appears more effective than a single evidence monologue.
In other words, SUE works best when it is not isolated from the rest of good interviewing. It fits with rapport. It fits with open-ended questioning. It fits with active listening. It fits with an information-gathering mindset. It fits with how law enforcement and corporate investigations actually do business through adaptable interviewing.
Why this matters beyond the interview room
Many legacy methods have treated the confession as the main event. SUE points investigators in a different direction. One of the strongest ideas in this literature is that exposed lies and statement-evidence contradictions are not second-best outcomes. They are often powerful evidence in their own right.
In Brimbal and Jones (2018) mock-juror studies, both exposed lies and confessions increased judgments of guilt relative to statements with neither. The paper concludes that the probative value of a defendant’s exposed lies about evidence was no different from a confession, and that exposed lies could even be more useful because they changed how jurors processed supporting evidence.
That is a major point for investigators, supervisors, prosecutors, and trainers. It is time to dump the confession obsession. A well-run SUE interview is not a failed interview just because it did not end in a confession. If the interview preserves the subject’s account, surfaces contradictions, gathers more information points, and strengthens corroboration, it may have done exactly what it needed to do. The other side of the coin would be to settle for less information and more resistance, and the investigator would still be confessionless.
The practical takeaway
If you remember only one thing, remember this: Strategic Use of Evidence is not just late disclosure. It is a structured way to gather the statement first, preserve contamination-free detail, and then test that statement through planned evidence disclosure. That is why SUE deserves more training. It is not an evidence dump saved for the end. It is a science-based approach to questioning and disclosure working together. Sun Tzu warned, “Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.” SUE does exactly that. It keeps interviewers agile and adaptable, not stuck in rigid step-by-step systems or confession-only thinking. Those older approaches have been shown to be less effective than science-based methods in real cases (Russano et al., 2024; Russano et al., 2026), while SUE and science-based interviewing gives investigators a more flexible and more useful way to gather, test, and evaluate investigative information.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)
What is Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)?
Strategic Use of Evidence, or SUE, is a science-based interviewing method that helps investigators use known evidence in a planned way. It is designed to improve credibility assessment, preserve the interviewee’s own account, and reveal whether critical facts are being concealed.
Why SUE is more than late disclosure
SUE is often described as late disclosure of evidence, but that leaves out half the method. The real strength of SUE comes from combining careful questioning before disclosure with an evidence disclosure plan. This not only helps with better interview preparation but also allows the interviewer to be more agile and make better credibility judgments.
The questioning tactic in SUE
The questioning phase starts broad and gradually narrows toward the relevant areas through the use of free narratives and funnel questioning, both core science-based interviewing techniques. This helps gather a cleaner account and gives the interviewer a better chance to detect omissions, volunteered details, and statement-evidence contradictions.
The disclosure tactic in SUE
After the account is gathered, evidence is disclosed in a deliberate way rather than all at once or by leading with your strongest piece of evidence. The goal is information and to test the statement, not simply confront the interviewee. Once disclosed questioning continues to see how the account changes when evidence is introduced.
What is the Evidence Framing Matrix?
The Evidence Framing Matrix helps the interviewer plan how evidence will be described during disclosure. Instead of jumping straight to the most precise version, the interviewer will move from more general framing to more specific framing in a structured way to help gather more accurate information while testing credibility.
How SUE helps preserve uncontaminated statements
By holding evidence back during the early part of the interview, SUE helps preserve the interviewee’s own wording, choices, and omissions. That matters because once evidence is revealed, you cannot take it back. While letting the interviewee speak we can decide if we have inconsistencies or know that we are gathering an uncontaminated, corroborated statement (this is the gold standard).
Statement-evidence inconsistencies explained
A statement-evidence inconsistency happens when what the interviewee says does not match what the known evidence shows. These contradictions can become highly useful because they are clear, testable, and tied to facts rather than guesswork about demeanor or human lie detection. You can testify to a statement-evidence inconsistency versus he looked up and to the left and his demeanor suggested xyz.
Within-statement inconsistencies explained
Within-statement inconsistencies occur when the interviewee changes the story during the interview. In SUE, these often appear after evidence is strategically disclosed and the interviewee starts revising earlier claims. This should lead the interviewer to ask more questions or clarify what is being said. The goal is always more information.
Why do exposed lies matter in investigations
Exposed lies are important because they can show guilt, concealment, or an effort to manage the facts. They also help investigators move beyond vague impressions and focus on contradictions that can be documented, testified to, and explained. Research suggests that jurors treat both confessions and exposed lies as highly incriminating. Across two studies, jurors increased their judgments of guilt when a defendant confessed, when the defendant’s lies were exposed, or when both were present. The difference is that confessions may act as a shortcut for guilt, while exposed lies appear to push jurors to scrutinize the supporting evidence more closely (Brimbal & Jones, 2018). In that sense, exposed lies are just as probative as confessions, and in some respects, may be even more useful because they encourage more critical evaluation of the case evidence. Legacy interviewing methods handle modern evidence poorly and are overly obsessed with confessions. What happens if they don't confess? That is an opportunity wasted.
Are exposed lies as powerful as confessions?
Research suggests that exposed lies about evidence can carry strong weight, including in how jurors judge a case, equal to that of confessions. That means a good interview does not have to end in a confession to produce valuable and persuasive results.
How SUE fits into science-based interviewing
SUE is one part of a larger science-based interviewing information-gathering approach. It works best alongside rapport, open-ended questioning, active listening, sound planning, red teaming and a curious mindset.
Common mistakes investigators make with evidence disclosure
Showing the evidence too early and losing the chance to hear the interviewee’s unprompted account
Treating disclosure like a dramatic reveal instead of a structured method for testing the statement
Piling up evidence just to overcome objections (confession seeking)
Wasting evidence instead of leveraging it for more information
How Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) supports corroboration
SUE helps investigators compare a person’s statement against known facts without first feeding those facts into the interview. That makes it easier to identify what lines up, what does not, and what needs further checking.
SUE vs. confession-driven interviewing
Confession-driven methods focus heavily on obtaining an admission and are often tied to pseudoscientific ideas about deception that are not useful in court. SUE takes a different path. It is firmly rooted in an information-gathering interview approach that emphasizes eliciting the account, testing it through contradictions, and using evidence carefully to strengthen credibility assessment.
Can SUE be used outside law enforcement?
Yes. The logic behind SUE can be useful anywhere an interviewer needs to test an account against known facts. The method can be adapted for noncriminal settings while still preserving fair process and good information gathering. IXI trains private sector investigators to use the SUE technique because it can be especially valuable in workplace and administrative investigations, where clear statements, documented contradictions, and careful evidence handling may matter later in administrative hearings, depositions, or other employment-related proceedings.
SUE for workplace, HR, and compliance investigations
In workplace investigative settings, SUE can help investigators gather cleaner accounts before showing emails, access logs, time records, or other evidence. That can make interviews more useful for fact-finding and reduce the risk of steering the person’s response too early.
Training investigators to use SUE correctly
SUE works best when investigators are trained to plan interviews, ask broad-to-narrow questions, and disclose evidence with purpose. Good training also helps investigators avoid rushing, interrupting, or erroneously collapsing the method into simple late disclosure.
Strategic Use of Evidence References and Resources
Brimbal, L., & Jones, A. M. (2018). Perceptions of suspect statements: a comparison of exposed lies and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law: PC & L, 24(2), 156–176.
Granhag, Pär Anders, Strömwall, L. A., Willén, R. M., & Hartwig, M. (2013). Eliciting cues to deception by tactical disclosure of evidence: The first test of the Evidence Framing Matrix: Tactical disclosure of evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 341–355.
Hartwig, M., & Cory, C. (2025, June 18). A paradigm shift in science-based interviewing: Interrogating to elicit true and false exculpatory statements. Police Chief Online.
Hartwig, Maria & Granhag, Pär & Strömwall, Leif & Kronkvist, Ola. (2006). Strategic Use of Evidence During Police Interviews: When Training to Detect Deception Works. Law and Human Behavior. 30. 603-619.
Kelly, Christopher E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). The dynamic nature of interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 295–309.
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., Brandon, S. E., Wells, S., Kleinman, S. M., Ray, D. G., & Jones, M. S. (2024). Evaluating the effectiveness of a 5-day training on science-based methods of interrogation with U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement investigators. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: An Official Law Review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, 30(2), 105–120.
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Jones, M. S., Rothweiler, J. N., Taylor, P. J., Cory, C., & Brandon, S. E. (2026). Evaluating the effectiveness of a practitioner‐designed science‐based interviewing and interrogation course: A collaborative training and research effort. Legal and Criminological Psychology, lcrp.70021.
Comments