MA- The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that "Off The Record" statements are admissible in court.
Although a police officer coaxed a suspected arsonist into making incriminating statements by promising that his remarks were “off the record,” the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that the statements were given voluntarily and are, therefore, admissible in court.
“As a general matter, law enforcement officials must exercise caution when employing deception or trickery or when giving assurances to a suspect during an interrogation. With respect to the former, we have, over the years, expressed our disapproval of police tactics that employ the use of false statements during an interrogation because such tactics cast doubt on the voluntariness of any subsequent confession or admission,” Justice Francis Spina wrote in a 5-2 ruling for the majority.
“Nonetheless, we also have repeatedly held that such deception or trickery does not necessarily compel suppression of the confession or admission but, instead, is one factor to be considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis.”
The ruling drew the dissent of Chief Justice Roderick Ireland and Justice Ralph Gants, who contended that statements elicited by police as a result of promises that they are “off the record” should be considered involuntary, if that promise is broken.
“In a thorough and careful memorandum of decision, the motion judge, after canvassing and discussing applicable precedent, found that 'while the defendant was likely misled concerning the ultimate use against him of his more offensive description of his neighbor's alleged sexual preference and conduct, the defendant was voluntarily talking with the investigators before any promise or assurance, and the essence of these comments was voluntarily included in his written statement,” Chernoff wrote in his decision.
“Indeed, the fact that the defendant was sufficiently savvy to ensure that the version which was potentially more harmful to himself was not included in the written statement is another indication of the absence of coercion.”
The state Appeals Court upheld Chernoff’s ruling last August.
In Ireland and Gants’s dissent, Gants wrote that there is “a world of difference between the police remaining silent as to whether a suspect's statement will be used against him and the police affirmatively telling a suspect that his statement will not be used against him.
“It is only through an awareness of these consequences that anything said can and will be used against a suspect that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination,” he wrote.
Gants argued that the majority’s opinion failed to acknowledge “what virtually every court” confronting comparable circumstances had ruled: that statements induced by assurances that they will be “off the record” are not voluntary and should be suppressed.
“The conviction should be reversed because the admission of these statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Gants concluded.
Link:
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x920802023/State-supreme-court-upholds-use-of-off-the-record-remarks-to-police