HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030936 Grant_Smith070964^eMailContent.htm Fed up with the prosecutor and in the presence of the jury, the witness preceded to recount my debate over recording from the first interview. Pointing to me in the back of the courtroom, the witness announced that I had warned him that they would pull this crap with the ""302"" report It didn't take the jury very long to acquit. With the advent of DNA and groups like the Innocence Project, we have now seen that so-called unrecorded confessions have put many innocent people in jail and even on Death Row. As a result, agencies such as the BSO, now require all interviews to be taped. But not the FBI. Like anyone, including lawyers, the FBI wants to control the record of the interview. Taping hurts that effort. I'm not saying that it is FBI policy to step over the line. But they have chalk on their shoes more often than you can imagine. So, what's should you do if the FBI comes calling? First of all, the advice I am about to give is not for the a guy who was an inadvertent witness to a bank robbery. I am talking about people who are being interviewed as part of the types of crimes that are best described as corruption, RICO, white collar, etc. Those are the kinds of cases that involve tons of evidence. Giving an innocent, but incorrect answer to a vague question could leave any of us in deep CaCa. A case in point is the lead story in the September 26, 2009 Herald. Chris Walton, director of the Broward County Transportation Department, was interviewed by two FBI agents. He stated that they wanted to know if "commissioners attempted to influence contracts." "I told them no." It may sound like a simple straight forward Q-and-A but it ain't necessarily so. He may think his interview and public statement ends the matter. In actuality, he has thrown down the gauntlet in front of the FBI. Start out with the understanding that the FBI is not investigating to see if there is crime and corrupti