The belief that nonverbal cues are more accurate measures of deception than verbal cues is based in the belief that nonverbal cues are instinctual and provide an unfiltered, uncontrolled indicator of deception. Verbal cues, on the other hand, are usually planned by the subject prior to the interview and are consciously managed during the interview. Deception research reported in the literature, however, shows that many speech-related cues are more revealing of deception than nonverbal cues. In addition, observers who focus on nonverbal cues are less accurate in discriminating between truths and lies than those who also focus on the verbal content of the interview. Further, when observers only pay attention to visual cues, they are more inclined to accuse the subject of a crime, even when he/she is telling the truth. This article argues for a refocusing of police practice in interviews, as it encourages investigators to listen more carefully to what suspects are saying in the interview. Encouraging criminal investigators to listen to and analyze verbal cues may have an additional benefit for interview tactics. It will tend to convince investigators to encourage interviewees to talk, because words carry verbal cues to deceit. It also encourages truthful interviewees to provide more information that may be useful to the investigation. 4 notes and 68 references