Tagged: Attorney General Eric Holder

DOJ Adopts New Policy Requiring Electronic Recording of Statements

The Justice Department has announced a new policy that will require federal law enforcement agencies to electronically record interviews with suspects.  According to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,

Creating an electronic record will ensure that we have an objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody. It will allow us to document that detained individuals are afforded their constitutionally protected rights.

The new policy will require federal law enforcement agencies to record interactions with a detained suspect during the time between the suspect’s arrest and initial appearance before a judge. Notably, the new policy also suggests that officials should consider using electronic recording devices during other investigative situations, including witness interviews.

This is a stark change from the Department’s prior policy, which expressively prohibited the use of recording equipment by law enforcement agencies when conducting interviews with suspects. The Justice Department was previously concerned that the use of recording devices would undermine investigative techniques of federal agencies, and would discourage suspects from talking. The Department also once expressed that jurors may frown upon FBI interviewing techniques, and have “unfavorable impressions of agents” had they heard verbatim accounts of such interrogations.

Mr. Holder discounted these concerns, explaining that federal officials should be more committed to a process that exemplifies evenhanded enforcement of the law, and the new policy would “provide verifiable evidence that our words are matched by our deeds.” He noted that it is of great importance for federal agencies to ensure that the statements of suspects are accurately recorded, and that suspects are afforded their constitutional rights during interrogations with federal agents.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers President Jerry J. Cox was pleased to hear about the Justice Department’s policy change, noting that the use of electronic recording during interviews

protects the accused against police misconduct, protects law enforcement against false allegations, and protects public safety by ensuring a verbatim record of the interrogation process and any statements.

Mr. Holder has already begun the implementation of the new policy, and has instructed United States attorneys and agency field offices to begin training sessions. As of July, the new policy will apply to the FBI, DEA, ATF and U.S. Marshals Service.

References:

Prosecutorial Discretion: Key Factor in Civil Rights Challenges

An inspiring editorial, Refusing to Defend Unjust Laws: Prosecutorial Discretion or Prosecutorial Nullification?, by Professor Bennett L. Gershman of Pace Law School has shed light on the national importance of Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent attempt to address state laws that may be unjust or unconstitutional. In past weeks, Holder has led the charge to denounce such laws by directing state attorneys general that it is within their discretion to refuse to defend such laws.

Professor Gershman, who is a nationally recognized authority in the field of constitutional law and well renowned expert on prosecutorial misconduct, highlights this development in both national politics and law, explaining that Holder’s directive is both an important and well principled exercise of a prosecutor’s discretion.  He points out that Holder’s position may play a pivotal role in the nation’s ability to address the defining civil rights challenges of our time, including state laws that ban gay marriages. Some critics, including a number of Republican state attorneys general, have criticized Holder’s position as an impermissible exercise of “prosecutorial nullification,” and violative of their duty to enforce all laws, including those that may be unconstitutional. However, Professor Gershman explains that Holder’s directive is a well-settled exercise of prosecutorial authority, as “discretion is at the heart of the prosecutor’s function, it is virtually unlimited, and virtually unreviewable.”

Professor Gershman further explains that “[p]rosectors decide every day – -as a matter of policy and justice– whether and to what extent to use their limited resources to enforce the law. And the kinds of determinations that prosecutors make every day is whether it would be unjust to enforce or defend certain laws, especially if the prosecutor believes in good faith that the law is invalid, unworkable, or unconstitutional.” He points out that “defending [] [unjust] laws, as the Republican attorneys general claim they must do, may be a principled exercise of discretion, but a foolish and irrational one.”  

Related Reading