Murder Victim’s Taped Remarks

A story in The Times (Jan. 13) concerning the Florida case where a murder victim taped the remarks of the murderer and other sounds (shots, moans, etc.) accompanying the murder, reports that a Florida court held the recorded evidence inadmissible because the murderer did not consent to the recording of the “private� conversation he had with his victim, as required by Florida law.

How stupid can we get; or in this case, how stupid was the Florida legislature? The law in question was typical of the legislation passed in the turbulent ‘60s and early ‘70s by lawmakers who strived mightily to protect any individual against the natural consequences of his (or her) own misbehavior.

In the Florida case, had the victim lived, he could have testified in court concerning the statements made by his assailant at the time of the shooting.

If a third person had overheard the murderer’s comments at the time of the shooting, he could have testified in court concerning those remarks.

But human memory is imperfect. If the remarks of the murderer are relevant and admissible, it is better to hear a recording of those remarks than the remembered statements from a fallible witness.

The California Legislature passed a law similar to Florida’s in 1967. As district attorney of Los Angeles County, I, along with other law enforcement officials, judges and realistic citizens throughout the state, protested vigorously. The Legislature responded by creating an exception to the general rule (in a separate section of the penal code), which allowed admission into evidence of recordings in cases involving major crimes.

This was one of the few victories for the forces of law and order during that unenlightened era.

I am sure there are many who opposed that exception who are now glad they lost that argument.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER

Los Angeles