Crime & Federalism

Back when the legal blogsophere was a magical place (the early days of the blogosphere really were something special), the excellent Appellate Law & Practice pointed out why FBI agents do not record confessions.  This is straight from the United State Department of Justice's mouth: "Perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants."

If I were the type of person to have an e-mail signature, this would be it: "Perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants."

Whenever some hack claim there is a logical reason for not recording confessions, repeat after DOJ: "Perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants."

You'll have to take DOJ's word that its interrogation techniques are "perfectly lawful."  One wonders who inserted and acceptable.  If the FBI doesn't want juries to know its interrogation methods, then obviously it's (allegedly) lawful interrogation techniques are not acceptable to normal Americans.

Which must mean that the FBI's interrogation techniques are acceptable to judges.

What does that say about judges?