On July 7, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered all custodial interrogations of juveniles in future cases be electronically recorded when feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. The decision would make any unrecorded interrogations and any written confessions of a juvenile that are not accompanied by recorded interrogations inadmissible as evidence in court.
Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 78, No. 8, August
2005
Supreme court rules recording juvenile criminal interrogations can
prevent false confessions
On July 7, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered all custodial
interrogations of juveniles in future cases be electronically recorded
when feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place
of detention. The decision would make any unrecorded interrogations and
any written confessions of a juvenile that are not accompanied by
recorded interrogations inadmissible as evidence in court.
In the majority opinion, Justice Bradley said the court agrees with
the court of appeals in its decision in the same case that "it is time
for Wisconsin to tackle the false confession issue" and "take
appropriate action so that the youth of our state are protected from
confessing to crimes they did not commit." In the instant case,
State v. Jerrell C. J., the court threw out the written
confession of a juvenile who claimed the confession was involuntary. The
decision also reversed a delinquency conviction.
The adoption of the recording rule was not without controversy.
Several justices questioned the court's authority to adopt such a
requirement. In his opinion concurring in the result, but dissenting in
part, Justice Prosser wrote, "The court should have recommended
legislation instead of legislating from the bench. By its action, the
court is attempting to dictate the practices of law enforcement agencies
under the guise of `superintending' state courts. This is not an
appropriate role for the judiciary in our system of government."
Justice Roggensack also filed a concurring in part/dissenting in part
opinion. She agreed with requiring law enforcement to tape record
questioning of juveniles whenever possible but refused to join the
court's mandate that unless interviews with juveniles are tape recorded,
statements made in those interviews will be suppressed at trial. "This
court has never before concluded that it had the power to suppress
defendants' statements in certain situations merely because it preferred
a different law enforcement technique in the procurement of those
statements, as it concludes today," Roggensack wrote.
This is a timely decision in light of the recommendations made by
Rep. Mark Gundrum's Avery Task Force, which recently wrapped up its
work. Gundrum anticipates introducing legislation this fall that will
make taping of felony confessions of adults and juveniles in custody a
state policy. While the bill draft has not yet been finalized, it is
anticipated that the new requirements will be subject to specific
restrictions and limitations.
Wisconsin Lawyer
