Did anyone else notice that the article posted on the front page regarding recording confessions left Texas out?
New Jersey has a "new" law that requires an electronic recording to be made of any confession if the investigation is of a murder.
The article goes on to promote the "new" law as progressive and forward thinking:
The regulations, which allow for audio or audiovisual recordings, make New Jersey the sixth state in the nation with such a law...
In New Jersey, State Attorney General Peter Harvey last year directed that confessions be recorded, but not the process leading up to the recording. The new rules go further, mandating that the Miranda warning - the rights read at the time of arrest - also be given on tape before the interrogation. "This approach is consistent with modern law enforcement techniques," Harvey said. "It is helpful for both sides because everything that is said, and the manner in which it was said, is accurately captured on tape."
States with similar requirements: Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota.
Texas' 38.22 rules seem much more progressive than this stuff. Why is it we only get mentioned when they (East/West coasters) want to pick on the Death Penalty?
We also record confessions on phone calls (noncustodial), in the back seat of patrol cars (no interrogation), from jail phones (no interrogation) and in interview rooms. The article only focuses on custodial interrogation, but that is the last resort. Most useful, reliable confessions come before custodial interrogation.
I think Texas was left out since we do not have a requirement that the entire interrogation process be videotaped or recorded. A written confession can be obtained without being recorded. Additionally, one could interrogate a suspect for several hours with no recording, start the videotape, read his rights to him, and record his confession. The legislation in several states and the article speak to the entire interrogation process being preserved for later review.
Posts: 1029 | Location: Fort Worth, TX | Registered: June 25, 2001
Ken, I think you are exactly right. The real issue in New Jersey and elsewhere will be that there will always be a claim that something was left off the tape. Furthermore, just as our DWI stop tapes are subject to varying interpretations, the defense will raise claims of coercion based on the new taping procedure. In my opinion this whole thing is driven by the CSI effect- a desire for more and better evidence without regard to the practicalities.
Keeping relevant and useful evidence from the jury is not progressive. In fact, it is harmful to the cause of justice. N.J.'s law guarrantees that sooner or later, an officer will have a complete and honest confession from a dangerous criminal, and will discover too late that his equipment failed to record. A dangerous criminal will be freed upon society, and some truly innocent soul will pay the price.
Law enforcement is moving towards recording all confessions anyway. There is no need to micromanage this movement by tossing out good evidence that does not comply with what is considered the optimal method of taking a statement.
