FBI has no use for new-fangled devices: James Gill

Unless you just robbed a bank, or drove across the state line with a trunkful of smack, you might think there is nothing to fear if the FBI requests an interview.


fbi seal.gif

Do not be a sucker. It is not just a sin to tell a lie, but a crime, if your interlocutor is a federal agent. Although the feds may have nothing else on you, recollections of what you said will always differ to some extent, and you may still wind up charged with lying.

If that happens, the jury will have to rely on intuition, because it is impossible to prove who is right. The FBI disdains such new-fangled devices as tape recorders.

And the smart money is generally on the government, because jurors tend to assume that FBI agents are straight-talking and untouchable. This is only to be expected; most jurors have led sheltered lives.

The vast array of technological wizardry at the FBI's disposal has not affected its interviewing methods, which are strongly reminiscent of Allan Pinkerton when he was pursuing train robbers before the Civil War. A notebook and pen are all that is required.

The attorney general has now rounded up a gang of U.S. attorneys to consider whether a little modernization is in order. If it is justice we want, the answer is obviously yes. Recording interviews would make it harder for the government to railroad suspects and harder for desperadoes to wriggle out of incriminating statements.

The momentum for a more efficient system is growing within the criminal justice system, but the spirit of Pinkerton lives on in the FBI. G-men say recording equipment would make suspects and witnesses uneasy and therefore less forthcoming. Shyster defense attorneys could study tapes and learn the FBI's tactical secrets. Besides, all that transcribing would be too much work.

The workload would indeed get heavier if audio taping were required, because it would remove a powerful disincentive to cooperation with the FBI. To make lying a crime without requiring a verbatim record of the interview can only encourage informants and suspects to dummy up. Either through malign intent or honest error, an FBI agent can misrepresent what he was told, and that'll be one more for the federal pen.

As word spreads how easy it is to get stitched up, invitations to an interview downtown will become less and less likely to be accepted. Sooner or later, the feds are going to have to play fair whether it's convenient or not.

Certainly former state Insurance Commission Jim Brown will wish he had never dropped in for a chat with agent Harry Burton 14 years ago. The feds were in full Keystone mode at the time, and their case collapsed spectacularly at trial in 2000, when Brown, former Gov. Edwin Edwards and attorney Ron Weems were accused of engineering a sweetheart deal with the state for a defunct insurance company.

The most obvious hole in the government's case was that the company had received no advantage whatsoever, and the jury acquitted Edwards and Weems on all counts and Brown on 43. Although that could only mean that Brown had nothing to hide, he was sentenced to six months after the jury took Burton's word for it that he had lied during their interview.

The conviction was an affront to any sense of fair play, since judge Edith Brown Clement refused to let the defense see Burton's handwritten notes of his conversation with Brown. Burton was cross-examined only about the summary he typed up several days later which, according to Brown, was riddled with errors.

Clement did review the handwritten notes in camera, and declared that the typewritten summary was faithful to them. It was most kind of her to spare the jury the chore of weighing the facts and making up its own mind.

Soon thereafter Clement was promoted to the court of appeals, where three of her new colleagues confirmed Brown's conviction. Perhaps that was fair enough, since the law allowed Clement to withhold the notes. Still, it was pretty ornery and, though he was granted access to the notes for his appeal, nobody can gainsay Brown when he claims he was denied an even break.

Think of all the costs the taxpayer would have been spared if the FBI taped interviews.

