Summary
Mississippi has no statute or court rule requiring recording of custodial interrogations.
Cases
In Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 208 (Miss. 1988), the Court said:
We accept that whether or not a statement is electronically preserved is important in many contexts. If a recording does exist it will often help to determine the voluntariness of the confession, the context in which a particular statement was made, and of course, the actual content of the statement.
In Jordan v. State, 868 So. 2d 1065, 1066 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), the appellant sought “a new evidentiary rule: out of basic fairness and the ease of doing so, no statement taken from an accused during custodial interrogation is admissible unless it is recorded or written out by the officials who procured it.” The Court of Appeals of Mississippi ruled against the appellant, stating that the “present requirement for admissibility is that a statement be given voluntarily without promises, threats, or inducements . . . There are no requirements regarding the form in which the statement must be memorialized. The present rule is sufficiently protective of the interests of fairness and we decline to suggest its alteration.”
Miscellaneous
Departments we have identified that presently record:
| Biloxi | Gulfport | Jackson CS |
| Cleveland | Harrison CS |
