The pendulum of credibility weighs heavily against a defendant who challenges the admissibility of his confession. If admitted, it will prove a virtual guarantee of conviction, as it is the most "potent of weapons for the prosecution."' Although prosecutors lament the layers of constitutional rights in place to protect a defendant against coercive interrogation methods, most challenges to admissibility will come down to the detective's word against that of the defendant. Absent a recording, the court will be called upon to decipher events that took place in communicado and will be consigned to speculate about what actually took place, weighing the relative credibility of witnesses. Where the court is left to speculate about what actually transpired, it is no secret that the defendant rarely prevails when a confession is in evidence. The entire set of rules governing the relationship between the suspect and interrogators is built on a house of cards whose major weakness resides in the premise that a court can accurately determine what transpired during the interrogation process.
Selva, Lance H. and Shulman, William L.
"Legislative Prerogative or Judicial Fiat: Mandating Electronic Recording of Stationhouse Interrogations in Tennessee,"
Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy:
3, Article 4.
Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/tjlp/vol1/iss3/4