One would think there would be no need for the New York Times to publish an op-ed arguing for the virtue of recording police interrogations. After all, the problems of false confessions as proven by subsequent DNA exonerations, exposing the manipulative questioning using the highly effective Reid Technique, have left us without any doubt of the need.
With the ubiquitous presence of cellphones, that record every burp of humanity, how can there be any doubt that recording interrogations, and the confessions that follow, is critical to sound evidentiary practice and the legitimacy of the confession? Indeed, there isn’t. And there wasn’t a decade ago.
Except, of course, the one aspect that troubled law enforcement, that the public might not appreciate the means necessary to compel a defendant to admit his guilt. To cops, it was what needed to be done. To the unwary lay juror, it might look a bit too unsavory for their untrained tastes. Almost a decade ago, when Prawf Brandon Garrett explained the necessity of recording interrogations in the New York Times, this was laid bare. Continue reading
