Saturday, January 26, 2013
I predict the defendant’s statements to police will be admissible against him at his immunity hearing and his trial.
The legal test will be whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights to remain silent and submit to police interrogation without counsel present. The SCOTUS established this test in Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
The defendant gave multiple statements to police investigators. Each statement was videotaped.
Before answering any questions, he reviewed, initialed and signed the standard form acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present while being questioned and his decision to waive those rights and submit to questioning.
There is no evidence on the videotapes that the police confronted, threatened or intimidated him in any way and they permitted him to go home after interviewing him the first night. Moreover, there is no evidence that they used any trick, lie or ruse to get him to talk. Therefore, his statements will be admissible pursuant to Miranda.
Some of you have commented that his attorneys might move to suppress his statements on the grounds that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which he was taking Adderall.
These mental disorders normally do not prevent a person from knowing that police are about to question them regarding their possible guilt in committing a crime and they have a right to refuse to answer any questions or insist on having a lawyer present during questioning. So long as they understand what they are being told, they can agree to waive those rights and submit to questioning. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary from a duly qualified mental health expert, PTSD and ADHD would not prevent a person from knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving those rights.
The defense has not filed a motion to suppress the defendant’s statements and I am not expecting such a motion.
Since the prosecution will want to use the defendant’s statements to prove his guilt, you might see BDLR file a motion asking the Court to rule that he can do that. To win the motion, he will have to convince Judge Nelson that the defendant’s statements were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made after advice and waiver of Miranda rights. Lawyers refer to this procedure as laying a proper foundation for the admissibility of the statements.
For the reasons I have stated, I expect Judge Nelson will grant the prosecution motion. The defense either will have no objection or its objection will be overruled (i.e., denied).
Keep in mind that the prosecution can introduce any of the defendant’s statements as admissions by a party opponent, but the hearsay rule prevents the defense from introducing any of them.