The following editorial appeared in today's NYT. It is a good example of the sort of media misinformation being pushed on the public. Which sentence in the editorial is a big fat lie?

Recording Police Questioning

Published: June 15, 2004

Civil libertarians have long argued that interrogations in major criminal cases should be recorded. A videotape or audio recording of the police at work, they argue, would deter coercive questioning and reduce the number of false confessions. But the police and prosecutors have resisted. Now a new study has found that in the small number of jurisdictions that record their interrogations, law enforcement has come to favor it. The study makes a strong case that the states and localities that do not require recorded interrogations now should start to do so.

Although it seems to defy common sense, false confessions are quite common, even in capital cases. There are a wide array of reasons. Juveniles are often manipulated into confessing. Tricky questioning, physical coercion or suggestions that a confession is the best way to avoid a lengthy sentence, or the death penalty, persuade many adults to admit crimes they did not commit.

Only four states and the city of Washington have decided to require recorded interrogations, though other states are considering it. The Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University recently surveyed 238 law enforcement agencies around the country that currently record the questioning of felony suspects. It found that "virtually every officer with whom we spoke, having given custodial recordings a try, was enthusiastically in favor of the practice." The police and prosecutors reported that it eliminated the problem of suspects' changing their stories, and let the jury satisfy itself that a confession was obtained honestly.

Recorded interrogations are a powerful tool for both sides in the criminal justice system. More states should enact laws adopting this win-win practice.

The police and prosecutors reported that it eliminated the problem of suspects' changing their stories, and let the jury satisfy itself that a confession was obtained honestly.

Yeah. Fixes the problem every time. If it's on tape, it _must_ be true.

"Although it seems to defy common sense, false confessions are quite common, even in capital cases."

Through what study did they determine that "false confessions are quite common"? That is the sort of statement that, when repeated often enough in print and on TV, takes on a life of its own.

It is utter nonsense to say false confessions are common. It also reveals a rather big bias by the media.

I think the assertion that police and proseutors have resisted using tape and video recordings is also false. It is the best weapon around. John Bradley makes a wonderful presentation for TDCAA and other groups on this topic.

Regardless of what you think about 38.22, Texas is ahead of the curve on recording confessions. But don't think for a minute that we will be immune from efforts next session to require audio/video recordings of all confessions (even written ones).

The people behind these yet-to-be-proposed changes are now just laying the foundation for their big push, which will no doubt include a 38.23 kicker designed to exclude some confessions that are valid under current law.

As always, thanks for the inside scooby, Shannon. However, we actually are closer to the capitol buildings in Santa Fe, Oklahoma City, and, I believe, Denver than we are to Austin. They may already have this brand of devilish mischief in the works in some of those edifices.

Just as the videotaping mandated in DWI cases has most often resulted in a defense tool (by putting a spin on what is shown or not shown on the tape), taping of the interrogation which leads to a confession will merely be used to try to exclude voluntary, truthful confessions. If a defendant wants to get on the stand during trial and explain why he made a particular statement, that is certainly his privilege and may occasionally lead to a finding by a jury that the statement was not voluntary or accurate. But by and large such statutes merely represent an impediment to enforcement of the law created to solve a non-existent problem. But, I guess it constitutes an admission that Miranda and Escobedo serve no purpose in helping to assure the police don't step out-of-bounds or that the confession is truly a confession. I think the law should require a videotape of the crime, that would seem to assure only the guilty are convicted. Surely some editor at the NYT would support that as well.

Ken, I don't mean to suggest a videotaped confession is not quite effective and in fact prevents any controversy about what was said by whom when. I just think the officer should be able to determine when to use a tape, and when to start the camera rolling.

And your reading and upset about the NYT becasue...? They are a liberal newspaper and you cannot trust what they report.

Further restricting the use of confessions will only become an issue in the legislature if the Speaker of the House and the Lt. Gov appoint the usual suspects to sit on the criminal justice committees. If they appoint reasonable, well adjusted people to those two committees, crank ideas about restricting the use of confessions will not only go no where, but 38.22 may go down the drain--where it belongs.

There is a major differance of opinion between the Chattering Classes, and the general voting public. To the editorial board of the NYT, unrecorded confessions should never be heard by a jury. But your average voter thinks if a crook makes a confession--whether it is recorded or not--it should be allowed to be heard by the jury. Non-mandatory recording of confessions is a major non-issue with the public.

The key to legislative success is for the Lt. Gov and Speaker to understand the immportance of the criminal justice committees, and to appoint serious people. If the speaker-to-be or the Lt. Gov. is mugged this summer, we mightget what we want. But the safer way is for our association to approach these men and stress the importance of those two committees.

this is a late response, but a number of years ago when I was just a mere law student, I remember a very liberal law professor ranting and raving about police officers "LYING, LYING" about how all the time, they were getting consent to search. "Yeah, officer search my car, I have got nothing to hide." Well we all know that if we could see what was really going on, nobody would EVER consent to a search of their car full of drugs, drug money,et al.

Then along comes the video camera mounted in the patrol car, and I get to watch all these seizure cases with people saying on videotape "Yeah, officer search my car, I have got nothing to hide"
all the time thinking of my old law prof.
So draw your own conclusions.

I am just a police offier and arson investigator not a CA or DA. But sure enjoy reading the thoughts that are here in this forum!!! Some are very helpful in my job and i am sure others jobs on the streets. I just want to say that John Bradley has a great mind. I attented a class put on by TDCAA in Llano last week where Mr. Bradley and some others spoke about Warrantless S & S, The class was outstanding and really brought the subjects into more light for us (police Officers) to see clearly. I remember the class covering the recording of confessions and so fourth. The PD here has micro recorders for the officers to carry in their cars. I am going to try to get to where we use the recorders more often. Hope ya'll dont mind me putting my thoughts in. Hope all of you have a great day!

The Brits have been audio taping interviews and confessions for years.

Thank you for the kind words from our tour or Llano (and then San Angelo). If you are in Llano, you do not want to miss Cooper's BBQ. Oh. My. Goodness.

You walk up to a huge smoker, point to the meat, and have it forked onto a tray. The server then asks if you want it dipped or not dipped. Go with dipped because the sauce is darn good.

The confession tour continues, with Bryan, Jacksonville, and other towns to come.