If cop arranges to question defendant in private, with no record, should jury believe the cop.?

Question

Does it undermine your trust in the cop when he could easily have made a tape?

What if he says he does not make tapes because people are less likely to talk freely when they see a recorder?

Would it make a difference if there was another cop present, but he could not confirm what the first cop says the defendant admitted?

I am interested in how jurors sort out circumstances like this. Some people think a cop will be believed rather than the defendant. Other's think it is very suspicious when a cop sets up circumstances where it his word against the defendant.

So there can be no mistake. Question was intended to ask what a juror should react.

The SUSPECT was questioned by the officer who said it was his policy NOT TO TAPE because people didn't talk as much when being taped--and also his policy to question in SUSPECT'S HOME with no one other than another cop present.

Answer 1

If I was the defendants attorney, I would personally challenge the police officer as to why no recording was made, why couldn't the officer have had a recording device in his pocket and then give the defendant his Miranda Rights (on tape) and proceed with his questions.

As a jurist, I would suspect the police officers testimony after hearing that question.

If there were another officer in the room but he could not substantiate the defendants answers then I would not believe any of the first officers comments, I would be feeling that the second officer did not want to commit perjury.

Let's just say that I am not willing to condemn someone based solely on the unsubstantiated testimony of a police officer, now if you have two officers saying the same thing then you pretty much have to believe that it was said.

Answer 2

I would think it would be hard to sucessfully challenge someone for doing something they are not required to do, and I have rarely seen this as an issue. And yes, inviting another officer in when signing the statement is common in major cases.

Although this seems to be an issue of concern for most states, as they are moiving towards mandatory taping of interviews. In Wisconsin, taping is required for juveniles and felonies, but there is no requirement for misdemenors.

As far as the jury, I would expect this to vary from juror to juror, but the biggest deciding factor in credibility is how they appear on the stand. There is even a jury instruction read by the judge suggesting they use life experience, along with the persons apperance and presentation, when assigning credibility to testimony.

Answer 3

5 QUESTIONS IN ONE?? OK

1) WHY WOULD A POLICE OFFICER QUESTION SOMEONE IN PRIVATE, WITH NO RECORD; UNLESS THAT PERSON WAS AN INFORMANT??

2) WHAT SAYS HE DID NOT TAPE THE EVENT? BUT EVEN IF HE DID, HE WOULD HAVE TO TELL THE PERSON IT WAS BEING TAPED, OR THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE WOULD NOT APPLY. (FRUIT OF DOCTRINE)

3) THIS IS TRUE. MANY INFORMANTS WILL TELL YOU MORE THEN YOU WANT TO KNOW. BUT YOU ARE NOT TO HAVE A RECORDER; BECAUSE YOU COULD PLAY IT BACK TO A SUSPECT. (AS IF WE WERE THAT DUMB) BUT PEOPLE ON CRACK DO NOT THINK REAL CLEARLY. $20 FOR A HIT GETS A LOT OF INFORMATION. ESPECIALLY AROUND THIS END OF THE MONTH, JUST BEFORE THE WELFARE CHECK COMES.

4) UNDER THE HEARSAY RULES, THE SECOND OFFICER WOULD BE A MATERIAL WITNESS TO WHAT WAS ACCURATELY STATED OR SAID.
AS TO IT'S ADMISSIBILITY, IT COULD BE CROSS EXAMINED AS ENTRAPMENT, COERCION, LEADING THE INVESTIGATION, PRODING A STATEMENT, CONSPIRACY (TWO OFFICERS AGAINST WITNESS) ETC.

5) JURIES ARE ALL DIFFERENT AS WE ALL ARE NEVER SELECTED AS A COLLECTIVE GROUP EVER AGAIN. THE VOIDIRE SCREENS OUT CERTAIN PEOPLE BASED UPON LEADERSHIP(POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS, BUSINESSMEN, WEALTHY) TO EXCLUDE ANYONE THAT WOULD LEAD A JURY TO A CONCLUSION.
ONE MAY BELIEVE THE OFFICER BECAUSE OF THE BELIEF THAT THE OFFICER HAS NOTHING TO LOSE OR GAIN IN S/HE'S TESTIMONY.
CREDABILITY AS TO THE SITUATION OF WHY WOULD S/HE DO THIS AND LIE OR NOT LIE? THEN AGAIN WHY NOT??

THIS TO ME SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTIONING OF A KNOWN INFORMANT. THE OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE UP HIS INFORMANT. I HAVE BEEN ASKED WHO THEY WERE AND I WOULD NOT TELL. RATHER LOSE THE CASE THEN THE INFORMANT.

Answer 4

In Canada there are clear rules that state that the best practice is to videotape ALL suspect interviews. This has been held up with case law. You may have a difficult time getting a conviction if the only evidence you have is what was alegedly said during an interview that wasn't taped.

Answer 5

Well generally you're supposed to believe law enforcement, specialists etc. over everyone else. But in this case since there's no record and it was in private that's pretty shady and would also fall under hearsay which is objectable. But if it's not called on objection it's still quite sketchy and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Answer 6

the court will take the side of a cop everytime. never talk to a cop. never talk to a cop in private. never talk to a cop in idle chit chat. never talk to a cop without an attorney present. never talk to a cop, even if its your brother.

Answer 7

If I were on the jury, I would discout the cop's testimony quite a bit under those circumstances.