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 > |
