NCJ Number
66900
Date Published
1979
Length
17 pages
Annotation
THE USE OF TAPE RECORDERS IN POLICE INTERROGATIONS IS NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT IS TOO COSTLY, FEW INTERVIEWS COULD BE TAPED, AND THE VALUE OF NONRECORDED EVIDENCE WOULD BE DIMINISHED.
Abstract
A TAPE RECORDING IS BETTER EVIDENCE AND MORE CAPABLE OF CORRECT INTERPRETATION BY A JURY THAN VIVA VOCE EVIDENCE OR A WRITTEN STATEMENT SINCE IT REPRODUCES NOT ONLY THE EXACT WORDS OF THE ACCUSED, BUT THE INFLECTION AND TONE OF VOICE AS WELL. THE TAPE EVIDENCE COULD ALSO PREVENT UNFAIR QUESTIONING METHODS BY THE POLICE, OR THE UNFAIR ALLEGATIONS ARISING FROM SUCH QUESTIONING. THIS COULD, IN TURN, REDUCE THE TIME SPENT BY THE POLICE AND THE COURTS IN DETERMINING THE ADMISSABILITY OF EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, STUDIES SHOW THAT THE USE OF TAPE RECORDERS IS NOT PRACTICAL SINCE THE ORIGINAL CONFESSION (NOT TAPED) ELICITED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER COULD BE RETRACTED BY THE SUSPECT DURING THE TAPED SESSION. ALSO, RECORDS OF TAPED INTERROGATIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS INTELLIGIBLE. MOREOVER, THE COSTS OF EQUIPMENT, SPECIAL FACILITIES, AND TRANSCRIPT TYPING WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE, BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. A LIST OF SEVEN REFERENCES IS INCLUDED.