; prevent disputes about how an officer conducted himself or treated a suspect during the course of an interrogation; prevent disputes about the account of events the defendant originally provided to law enforcement; spare judges and jurors the time necessary and need to assess which account of an interrogation to believe; and enhance public confidence in the criminal process. It is therefore the Congress’ intent to require the video and audio recording of all custodial interrogations in Federal law enforcement agencies. (22) An informant is a person who was not a victim of a crime who offers to provide information or assistance to law enforcement in exchange for leniency or some other benefit. The testimony of informants, who have reason to seek leniency from the criminal justice system in exchange for their testimony, is inherently suspect. However, truthful informant testimony may still be important in solving crimes. (23) Rewarding informants, either tacitly or explicitly, by the Government produces dangerous incentives to manufacture or fabricate testimony. Thus, it is incumbent upon the judicial system to assess whether informant testimony is reliable. (24) The use of informant testimony without a system to properly assess its reliability or corroborate its substance provides fertile ground for obstruction of the fair administration of justice. (25) Therefore, a system to properly assess the reliability of informant testimony, including, but not limited to audio and video recording of all statements provided by informants, should be developed. (26) The failure to properly educate law enforcement, defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, juries, and other fact investigators and fact finders about the vulnerabilities inherent in informant testimony enables improper consideration of such testimony, which can seriously undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system. 302. Accuracy and reliability of evidence in criminal cases