The Telltale Signs of Deception: Insights from a Veteran Trial Attorney

Dan Cogdell, a Houston-based criminal defense attorney with over four decades of experience, has become something of an expert in detecting lies. In a recently viral TikTok video, Cogdell shared his professional insights on identifying deception in everyday conversations. According to him, the average person tells two to three lies daily—whether they’re aware of it or not. “It might be a white lie. It might be something that’s told out of kindness and not deception, but we all lie every single day,” he explained to The Post. Even a simple exchange like “How are you? I’m fine” often constitutes what he bluntly calls “a f—ing lie.” His experience in courtrooms has given him a unique perspective on human deception, allowing him to identify specific verbal cues that often indicate someone isn’t being entirely truthful. These insights don’t just apply to criminal cases but can help anyone navigate conversations where honesty might be in question.

The first red flag phrase Cogdell identifies is “as far as I can recall.” When someone begins a statement this way, they’re likely stalling for time while creating internal distance from the truth. This preface acts as a buffer, giving the speaker a moment to formulate a more palatable version of events. Similarly, the phrase “to be honest” particularly irritates Cogdell, who questions the logic behind it: “If you say you’re being honest now, does that mean you were never honest before you said that?” These qualifying statements often preface deception rather than honesty. Another common deceptive phrase involves absolute statements like “I always have” or “I never have.” Cogdell points out that such black-and-white declarations rarely reflect reality: “Very few people have always done something or never done something. So, I’ve never told a lie, or I always tell the truth? That’s a tagline of bulls–t.” These absolute statements typically signal an attempt to overcompensate for a lie by emphasizing unequivocal certainty where nuance would be more truthful.

Beyond specific phrases, Cogdell highlights tactical approaches that often indicate deception. One common strategy is question repetition—when someone mirrors your question back to you instead of answering it directly. For example, if asked “Where did you go last night?” a deceptive person might respond with “Um, where did I go last night?” This echo technique buys them precious moments to construct a believable answer. However, Cogdell acknowledges—and commenters on his video pointed out—that this behavior isn’t always indicative of deception, as it can also be associated with ADHD (echolalia). The final deceptive tactic he identifies is the “deflect and evade” technique. When confronted with a direct question like “Did you go to a strip club last night?” a person using this strategy might respond defensively: “You don’t have anything better to do than wonder if I went to a strip joint?” Rather than addressing the question, they attack the questioner or change the subject entirely—a classic maneuver to avoid revealing an uncomfortable truth.

While these verbal cues provide valuable insights, Cogdell emphasizes that his list isn’t absolute or foolproof. “These are general rules and there’s always exceptions,” he told The Post. “It depends on the context, your familiarity with the person, and their speech patterns. There’s nothing concrete about the list, it’s just a starting point.” In addition to verbal indicators, he pays close attention to body language, considering nonverbal clues “as important as verbal cues.” The combination of what people say and how they physically present themselves provides a more complete picture when assessing truthfulness. Context matters significantly—understanding someone’s typical speech patterns and baseline behavior helps differentiate between habitual speech mannerisms and actual attempts at deception. Cogdell’s approach demonstrates that detecting lies requires attention to multiple factors rather than relying on a single indicator.

With characteristic candor, Cogdell doesn’t exempt his own profession from scrutiny, stating that “lawyers are the biggest liars on the planet.” He believes the adversarial nature of litigation encourages dishonesty and rewards creativity in stretching the truth. “The practice encourages dishonesty and puts a premium on creativity and stretching the truth. In particular, the adversarial nature of litigation encourages disharmony and the best way to continue that disharmonious relationship is to not tell the truth,” he explained. This forthright assessment of his profession reveals Cogdell’s nuanced understanding of how institutional and professional pressures can normalize certain forms of deception. While he criticizes the broader culture of dishonesty within legal practice, he maintains personal boundaries around his own ethical standards, drawing distinctions between strategic legal arguments and outright falsehoods.

Regarding his personal relationship with truth-telling, Cogdell admits that he occasionally lies “when I don’t have a choice and when I think the answer is going to cause more pain than the truth.” This acknowledgment reveals a human perspective on deception—recognizing that sometimes untruths serve compassionate purposes. He credits four years of sobriety with “reducing the baseline of my lying,” suggesting that personal growth and self-awareness play important roles in our relationship with honesty. Despite these admissions, Cogdell maintains he has never intentionally told a lie in a courtroom: “Have I raised a reasonable doubt and have I argued things that were reasonable deductions from the evidence? Sure. But have I ever solicited perjury or knowingly told a lie? I got to say I could pass that test, but others might disagree.” This distinction between legal argument and outright deception highlights the complex ethical terrain that trial attorneys navigate, where advocacy doesn’t necessarily mean fabrication. Cogdell’s insights offer not just techniques for detecting deception, but a thoughtful reflection on how and why we all occasionally depart from the complete truth.