Crimes, Truth and Videotape: Mandatory Recording of Interrogations at the Police Station
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 19 No. 5 Pg. 28 |
| Pages | 28 |
| Publication year | 2006 |
Vol. 19, No. 5, Pg. 28. Crimes, Truth and Videotape: Mandatory Recording of Interrogations at the Police Station
Vol. 19, No. 5, Pg. 28
September/October 2006
It is time for the Utah Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory power to require videotaping of custodial interrogations of juvenile and adult crime suspects. This requirement should be imposed when the questioning occurs at a place of detention where videotaping equipment is available. If video recording is unavailable, an audio recording should be required. The videotaping requirement should only be excused when impracticable, and the failure to do so, excusable. Requiring electronic recording when the questioning occurs at a place of detention will provide courts the means to develop a complete, accurate, and objective record on the voluntariness of a confession. With the simple flip of a switch, the courts can be provided with a record of everything that transpires during a custodial interrogation. Recording is a reasonable safeguard which will ensure the protection of an accused's right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, and his or her right to a fair trial. Recording will also protect law enforcement from false claims of coercion and improper conduct.
I. FALSE CONFESSIONS
Confessions by juveniles and adults are "universally treated as damning and compelling evidence of guilt [that] is likely to dominate all other case evidence and lead a trier of fact to convict the defendant."1 It is difficult for most people to understand why an innocent person would falsely confess to a crime. However, a combination of interrogation techniques, overzealousness, the length of the interrogation, isolation, police trickery and deception, and threats and promises can manipulate a rational person to rethink his denial of criminal responsibility and falsely admit guilt. Juveniles and mentally challenged suspects are the most vulnerable to psychological interrogation techniques.2 When police induced false confessions occur, they can lead to miscarriages of justice.
The Central Park jogger case brings home the stark reality of false confessions. People v. Wise, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837(N.Y. Sup. 2002). All five defendants implicated themselves as accomplices to a rape that was committed by someone else. Id. at 843. In this infamous case, five juveniles were convicted and sent to prison for the brutal rape of a young woman jogging through Central Park. Id. at 840. "Police interrogated each of the five youths separately, keeping them in custody at the Central Park Precinct for more than twenty hours before turning on the cameras for their confessions."3 All five teens were convicted despite the fact that neither the blood nor the semen found on the victim matched any of the juveniles. Id. at 845. Each juvenile confessed after several hours of interrogation. However, in each case the confessor pointed the finger at one of the other teen co-defendants rather than implicating himself. Id. at 845-846. Moreover, none of the juveniles provided accurate descriptions of where the attack took place. Id. at 846. Even though there was no physical evidence and there were inconsistencies and gaps in the "confessions," the jury convicted the juveniles.
More than twelve years later, the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, asked the court to overturn the convictions after a convicted rapist, Matias Reyes, confessed. Id. at 843-44. Reyes' confession was corroborated by DNA evidence proving that he was the rapist. Id. at 844.
The convictions are a prime example of the compelling and damning impact of a confession on a jury. A jury easily overlooks discrepancies between the evidence and the confession. False confessions are real and can result in miscarriages of justice.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS
The State bears the burden of showing that an accused gave a valid waiver of his Miranda rights prior to making incriminating statements during custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966). In making this determination, courts look at the totality of the circumstances. State v. Hunt, 607 P.2d 1297, 300 (Utah 1980). On appeal, a trial court's finding of a valid waiver of Miranda rights is granted some degree of discretion. State v. Leyva, 951 P.2d 738, 741 (Utah 1997).
After determining a valid Miranda waiver has occurred, the courts are then called upon to determine whether a confession was involuntary, unreliable, and a product of coercion. If a confession was involuntary, its admission violates the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 7 of the Utah Constitution. Under the totality of circumstances test, courts must consider such external factors as the duration of the interrogation, the persistence of the officers, police trickery, absence of family and counsel, as well as threats and promises made to the defendant by the officers. Moreover, the defendant's mental health, mental deficiency, emotional instability, education, age, and familiarity with the judicial system are additional factors which must be considered.4
Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is involuntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986). However, police do not need to engage in flagrant misbehavior in order to be coercive. "Rather, subtle pressures are considered to be coercive if they exceed the defendant's ability to resist. Accordingly, pressures that are not coercive in one set of circumstances may be coercive in another set of circumstances if the defendant's condition renders him or her uncommonly susceptible to police pressures." In Re Jerrell, 699 N.W.2d 110, ¶19 (Wis. 2005) (citation omitted). Since the police conduct itself is inextricably intertwined with the determination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial