he idea that someone would falsely confess to a serious crime seems counterintuitive to most people. False confessions are a well-documented reality, particularly among more vulnerable groups such as juveniles and the mentally disabled, and they have resulted in wrongful convictions in Texas and across the country. Confessions are so powerful, in fact, that they can even overcome other exculpatory evidence. Juries will sometimes convict an individual based on a confession alone, so special care must be taken to ensure that the suspect’s statements are as reliable as possible.
Juries will sometimes convict an individual based on a confession alone, so special care must be taken to ensure that the suspect’s statements are as reliable as possible.
While documented false confessions indicate the need for safeguards, powerful benefits to law enforcement have also made recording very popular with the police who do it. A survey of police departments that record interrogations conducted by former United States Attorney Thomas P. Sullivan found overwhelming support for electronic recording of interrogations. Among the benefits cited were the protections against false claims of coercion or misconduct, the ability to concentrate on the suspect and his demeanor rather than taking notes, and the usefulness of recorded interrogations for training officers. With electronic recording, motions to suppress confessions are reduced, and the “he said-she said” swearing matches about what took place in the interrogation room are essentially eliminated. The result is that judges and juries have the complete story that allows them to effectively weigh the evidence, convict the guilty, and protect the innocent.
Although Texas currently requires that oral confessions be recorded to be admissible in court, there is no provision stating that the interrogation preceding an oral confession must be recorded. Further, authorities overwhelmingly rely on written statements signed by the suspect, which have no requirement for electronic recording at all. In any case, Texas currently does not require that interrogations that lead to confessions be recorded.
Texas should require the electronic recording of full custodial interrogations in serious crimes with the following considerations in mind:
- “Stem to stern” recording: In order to reap the benefits that electronic recording affords police, prosecutors, innocent suspects, and the system as a whole, the entire custodial interrogation must be recorded—not merely the confession. Recording should begin at and include the delivery of the suspect’s Miranda rights and continue uninterrupted until the end of the interview. Implementing this requirement guarantees that the best, most complete evidence will be available at trial. Questions as to whether Miranda warnings were given and false claims of abuse or coercion will be avoided, resulting in fewer motions to suppress confessions. Recording may also encourage guilty suspects to enter into plea bargains rather than going to trial.
Innocent suspects will likewise be protected from wrongful conviction by providing courts with the information necessary to accurately assess whether a defendant’s statement is reliable and voluntary.
- Audio or video: While video recording devices are preferable, some departments have expressed concern about the costs of implementation. Audio recording is an acceptable alternative that can be implemented at very low cost. It should be left to the discretion of the agency to choose the system that best fits its needs and resources.
- Scope of recording: Recording in all criminal cases promises the most benefits, but at a minimum, recording interrogations conducted in connection with felony investigations should be required. It is especially urgent to record interrogations involving juvenile suspects and those whom authorities have reason to believe are mentally disabled or mentally ill.
- Exceptions: Recording requirements must include reasonable exceptions so as not to place an undue burden on law enforcement and to allow for the admission of voluntary statements that were not recorded for valid reasons. For example, a suspect’s statement should be admissible if officers made a good faith effort to record but were unable to do so because of equipment malfunction or power outage. Additionally, spontaneous statements made by the defendant, or statements made during routine processing of the defendant, may be admissible in court because they were made outside the context of an interrogation. Statements made by a suspect who refuses to speak if recorded might also be deemed admissible as long as the refusal itself is recorded.
False confessions are a well-documented reality, particularly among more vulnerable groups such as juveniles and the mentally disabled.
Electronic recording of custodial interrogations has emerged as a powerful innovation and fact-finding tool for the criminal justice system. The virtue of electronic recording of custodial interrogations lies not only in its ability to help guard against false confessions, but also in its ability to develop the strongest evidence possible to help convict the guilty.
