Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

confess at lower rates than those not recorded, whether or not the suspects were
aware of the videotaping. 618
The authors of the Reid Technique, however, continue to argue that guilty
suspects are less likely to tell the truth and/or confess if they are electronically
recorded. 619 In addition, they believe that videotaping interrogations would
ultimately harm investigations and especially prosecutions. 620 They contend
that unless the videotaping can be done surreptitiously (which it cannot in
states that require two-party consent for electronic recording), the presence of
a video recording device, or simply the knowledge that the session was being
taped, would undermine the sense of privacy that is a prerequisite to a successful
Reid Technique interrogation. 621 They point to a study by one of the authors,
who surveyed investigators in Alaska and Minnesota and found that when the
recording device was never visible the investigators obtained an 82% confession
rate as opposed to a 43% rate when the device was visible. 622 This, they argue, is
the foremost reason not to require videotaping of interrogations.
Inbau et al. acknowledge that videotaping interrogations may help reduce
doubts as to the trustworthiness or voluntariness of the confession, help jog
the investigator’s memory while testifying, and defend against allegations
of improper interrogation tactics. 623 They do not mention the possibility that
videotaping will help in training interrogators. Ultimately, the authors argue that
the costs of videotaping outweigh the benefits. They point to the possibility of
“numerous occurrences where a defense expert would offer the opinion that, based
on analysis of the videotaped interrogation, the defendant’s will appeared to be
overcome, or that in the defendant’s mind he perceived a promise of leniency or a
threat to his well-being (even though none was stated).” 624 They also argue that a
requirement for videotaping is too great a burden for police and prosecutors, who
already have a difficult time maintaining the integrity of all pieces of evidence.
Defense attorneys could unfairly exploit the possibilities of the electronic device
failing, portions of the recording fading or being lost due to mechanical failure,
gaps because of the need to change a tape, the loss of the tape, inadvertent erasure
of the tape, or the unavailability of electronic recording in a particular location to
place doubts about the entire circumstances surrounding the interrogation in the
minds of the judge and jury. 625
Aubry, however, writes unequivocally that a “requirement for the interrogation
room [is] an adequate and efficient sound and tape recording system.” 626 He
continues: “motion picture records…are exceedingly valuable” because they
618
Id., 19-20
619
Inbau, see note 109, p. 397.
620
Id., p. 393-397.
621
Id., p. 397.
622
Id., n.23
623
Id., p. 394.
624
Id., p. 396.
625
Id., p. 396-397.
626
Aubry and Caputo, see note 406, p. 71.
225