by TChris

While ruling that suspects in criminal cases don't have a constitional right to have the police record their statements, the New Jersey Supreme Court created a committee to consider whether the court should require judges to exclude statements from evidence that were produced by unrecorded interrogations.

"The proverbial time has arrived for this court to evaluate fully the protections that electronic (recording) affords to both the state and to criminal defendants," the court said in a 5-1 decision written by Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. It stressed the judiciary bears the responsibility to guarantee "the proper administration of ... criminal justice."

Recording interrogations -- a practice required in only three states -- has obvious benefits for both prosecutors and defendants. Recordings make it difficult for a defendant to claim "I never said that" or to argue that a confession was coerced. By the same token, they prevent the police from placing their own spin on the defendant's statement, and they discourage police from using coercive interrogation tactics.

New Jersey's Attorney General believes that "New Jersey will develop policies and procedures that will stand as a model for the nation." If so, it can't happen quickly enough.