Failure to record Article 31 warnings significantly strengthens suppression motions by preventing government proof of proper advisement. Without recordings, courts must evaluate conflicting testimony about whether warnings occurred and their adequacy. This credibility contest often favors defense given the government’s burden to prove proper warning beyond reasonable doubt.
Missing recordings raise inference that warnings were deficient – if properly given, why not preserve proof? Modern technology makes recording feasible in most circumstances. Investigator claims of equipment problems or inadvertent failures face skepticism when recordings would have supported their position. Pattern failures across cases suggest deliberate avoidance of documentation.
Courts scrutinize unrecorded warnings more carefully, requiring detailed testimony about exact language used, timing, and suspect responses. Minor investigator inconsistencies about unrecorded events undermine credibility. Defense counsel exploit memory gaps and variations between investigators present. Written acknowledgments alone prove insufficient when surrounding circumstances remain undocumented.
Strategic approaches emphasize recording availability and investigator training about documentation importance. Why risk suppression through poor documentation unless hiding deficient warnings? The absence of expected evidence becomes evidence itself. While not automatically fatal, missing recordings create uphill government battles proving proper advisement, often leading to suppression or favorable plea negotiations.