Opinion ID: 2639434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Transcribe Tapes

Text: Neither Forester nor the prosecutor had transcripts prepared of Darlene's three November 9 taped interviews or the December 4 taped interview with the sheriff's deputies. Forester said he listened to all of the tapes four or five times. He also reviewed the reports associated with each tape. He said he made notes of the tapes, but he could not find them in his files. He thought Darlene was easily led and he thought she was trying to please the investigators because she was, in fact, involved in the murders. Forester bridled at the suggestion he was lazy for not having the tapes transcribed. When the referee asked him whether it would have been better to put the tapes before the jury, Forester explained it was just a question of technique. He believed the reports adequately summarized the tapes and he believed Darlene's cross-examination was based on all the information before him, including the tapes. When the referee persisted that playing the tapes would have been a more effective method of cross-examination, Forester disagreed. To his thinking, Darlene, under police pressure, told police about petitioner's confession because she was present at the murders. Forester stated, Isn't that why she really broke down in the end?