home

WI Requires Recording of Juvenile Interrogations

by TChris

By legislation or court decision, a handful of states have required the police to record interrogations of criminal suspects to improve the administration of the criminal justice system. Among other benefits, the practice prevents police interrogators from placing their own "spin" on a suspect's words (and from deliberately lying about the suspect's statement) while forestalling disputes in court about what the suspect actually said and whether the statement was voluntarily made. Illinois requires interrogations to be recorded in murder investigations when the questioning occurs in a police facility, but there are good reasons to extend the requirement to other cases, as well.

Children, in particular, are easily swayed to make false confessions. Recording police interviews of children is essential to guard against that harm. The Wisconsin Supreme Court today mandated that police interrogations of children must be recorded when feasible, and must always be recorded when they occur in a police facility. According to the court:

Experiences in Minnesota, Alaska, and hundreds of other jurisdictions that now voluntarily record demonstrate that the benefits of such practice greatly outweigh the costs, both real and perceived.

First, a recording requirement will provide courts with a more accurate and reliable record of a juvenile's interrogation. ... Second, an accurate record will reduce the number of disputes over Miranda and voluntariness issues for juveniles. ... Third, recording will protect the individual interest of police officers wrongfully accused of improper tactics. ... Fourth, a recording requirement will enhance law enforcement interrogations of juveniles. ... Finally, such a rule will protect the rights of the accused.

Congratulations to Assistant State Public Defender Eileen Hirsh, who aruged the case, and to the impressive list of lawyers who helped with amicus briefs:

Steven A. Drizin, Chicago, IL, on behalf of the Children and Family Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law; Marygold S. Melli, Professor Emerita, Madison, on behalf of the University of Wisconsin Law School; and Marsha L. Levick, Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of the Juvenile Law Center. ... Keith A. Findley and John A. Pray, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Innocence Project of the Frank J. Remington Center-University of Wisconsin Law School; Barry C. Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Madeline deLone, New York, NY, on behalf of the Innocence Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law-Yeshiva University; Julie Jonas, St. Paul, MN, on behalf of the Innocence Project of Minnesota-Hamline University School of Law; Bill Allison, Austin, TX, on behalf of the Innocence Clinic and Criminal Defense Clinic-University of Texas School of Law; Jacqueline McMurtrie, Seattle, WA, on behalf of the Innocence Project NW Clinic-University of Washington School of Law; Theresa A. Newman, Durham, NC, on behalf of the Center on Actual Innocence; Emily Maw, New Orleans, LA, on behalf of the Innocence Project New Orleans; Binny Miller, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Criminal Justice Clinic-American University, Washington College of Law; Richard Leo, Irvine, CA, on behalf of the Department of Criminology, Law and Society-University of California-Irvine; Dr. Robert Schehr, Flagstaff, AZ, on behalf of the Northern Arizona Justice Project and Department of Criminal Justice-Northern Arizona State University; Andre Moenssens, Columbia City, IN, on behalf of the University of Missouri-Kansas City; the Center on Wrongful Convictions-Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL; the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region-American University-Washington College of Law, Washington,D.C.; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington, D.C.; and the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Monona.

< Novak: Rehnquist to Retire This Week | Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This should be the law in all criminal cases, period. Complete rcordings protect defendants AND cops. And can lead to quicker resolution of cases.

    Re: WI Requires Recording of Juvenile Interrogatio (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Another no-brainer that took HOW long to implement? I'm reminded, however, that it took them until the early 1970's to move the goalposts to the BACK of the endzones in football. No, really, it's much better to play tackle football with two steel poles in the middle of the goal line.

    If only similar protections could of been enforced in all states and earlier maybe this would of never happened. For those of you too lazy or busy to read that tragic article the part I am refering to is in which a mentaly challegened 17-year-old is interogated for 12 hours in a room with a baseball bat and only 45 minutes of it is recorded.

    I was quite simply amazed by this story. Do the police in America really not tape-record interviews with suspects? Wow. This has been standard practice in the UK for at least about the past 15 years, I believe. Is there anything that is in the slightest bit controversial about making this standard practice? Can anyone make a legitimate case for NOT recording interviews? Cost? Go to hell. If they can afford to mount video cameras on every cop car, surely the cost of a couple of cassettes won't break the criminal justice system. Once again I ask (just because I am still in complete disbelief about this) do they REALLY not record them? REALLY?

    Re: WI Requires Recording of Juvenile Interrogatio (none / 0) (#5)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    can't videotape all of them... Too much chance of rampant incompetence becoming obvious.