2011.01.04 Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements to LE

[Lanie]

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

It's still JMOO ICA's won't be thrown out, because she didn't admit to anything other than not really working at Universal, which is not what she is on trial for. IMO, this would be useful for the State at trial to illustrate to the jury: THIS is what ICA chose to do with her time and the police at a time when she is claiming her daughter was kidnapped by a nanny and had already been missing for over a month.

 

[AZlawyer]

Frankly, I believe much of what KC said during her jailhouse calls and visits is much more damning than the Universal interview, and if I am not mistaken, the jailhouse tapes are admissible. :rocker:

Unless Mom and Dad were acting as "agents of the state" trying to get her to confess. And THAT argument I think is a tough one! Are Cindy and George going to get on the stand and say that they were questioning Casey in hopes of helping the detectives gather evidence against her??

 

[ziggy]

AZLawyer,

I admire, appreciate, love reading your posts and you have my utmost respect! I just can't believe they filed this motion, if they had attached something to back up their statement other than ICA's "version of how things transpired", I might not have been so offended by this motion.

I have a question, if ICA was in custody and not mirandized properly, wouldn't this case have been dismissed already? Wouldn't the defense have filed something about her not being mirandized from the get go or when they were appealing her bail?

I was discussing these motions with my law professor for evidence class, who is a seated judge, and he basically said the defense HAS to file these motions. It may upset people but that is their job and it would practically be malpractice not to. These are standard evidentiary issues - trying to keep out statements and other evidence that make your client look like a bad person, so that the jury will decide her fate based on the facts of the case and the evidence presented and not because they have negative emotions about her (well, he said it differently, his analogy was more brutal).

So yeah, we don't like it but the defense is doing their job and all is not lost because the state can argue their side and the Judge will decide.

This is one of those really close call issues. The great thing is that we all get to see our system running in real time here...this is how it works for the guilty and for the innocent. LE have to make tough calls in the field, and they know the consequences, but sometimes they roll the dice. I don't think Casey is innocent, but these rights are provided to everyone, and I'd want them provided to me God forbid, if I were ever wrongly accused.

I look forward to hearing Judge Perry's opinion and I thank our verified lawyers here for their assistance in figuring this all out. As a student, this has been of great value.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I don't see how detectives couldn't tell the jury "about" Casey taking them to Universal Studios? I understand if the audio interview gets tossed out, they can not talk about what was stated by Casey once she was in that room with the closed door, but I would think anything that happened before going into that room would still be admissable?

Casey was taking detectives to her office. Detectives weren't taking Casey to her office. Casey was looking for her lost phone that had all the phone numbers of everyone who ever knew Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez existed. She was simply a mother trying to help detectives find her daughter at that point. :banghead:

Ugh, I just don't understand. When is this hearing?

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't see how detectives couldn't tell the jury "about" Casey taking them to Universal Studios? I understand if the audio interview gets tossed out, they can not talk about what was stated by Casey once she was in that room with the closed door, but I would think anything that happened before going into that room would still be admissable?

Casey was taking detectives to her office. Detectives weren't taking Casey to her office. Casey was looking for her lost phone that had all the phone numbers of everyone who ever knew Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez existed. She was simply a mother trying to help detectives find her daughter at that point. :banghead:

Ugh, I just don't understand. When is this hearing?

It's possible that the detectives will be able to say what happened at Universal without relating what Casey said during the "interview" part. Perhaps they will be able to relate Casey's statements and actions all the way up until they went in the room and said, "Look, we know you're lying to us about everything," or words to that effect. If HHJP ruled that the "custody" began at that moment, I think an appellate court would agree.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Unless Mom and Dad were acting as "agents of the state" trying to get her to confess. And THAT argument I think is a tough one! Are Cindy and George going to get on the stand and say that they were questioning Casey in hopes of helping the detectives gather evidence against her??

:laughcry: Cindy and George Anthony acting against Casey? :laughcry:





kay:

Cindy and George Anthony have done nothing to help detectives find out what happened to Caylee. They have literally gone and done the opposite. They have worked against Law Enforcement every change they have got. Please... Please... Please... let Cindy and George take the stand... maybe the SA will be able to show Judge Perry what he is really dealing with when it comes to this whole family!

 

[logicalgirl]

Can I just ask for clarification or opinions here for a moment. As posters, we all use phrases such as when Judge Perry finds out, or when Judge Perry hears this, etc., as if this will all be new information to him as he hears or reads it in the courtroom.

I may be entirely off base here, but my "read" of HHJP is he is staying ahead of this case and has probably read most of the depositions, looked over the evidence in this case, so when the SA or the Defense is arguing motions in front of him, he has a very good idea of what they are talking about.

Am I completely wrong in my assumptions?

 

[LolaMoon08]

Can I just ask for clarification or opinions here for a moment. As posters, we all use phrases such as when Judge Perry finds out, or when Judge Perry hears this, etc., as if this will all be new information to him as he hears or reads it in the courtroom.

I may be entirely off base here, but my "read" of HHJP is he is staying ahead of this case and has probably read most of the depositions, looked over the evidence in this case, so when the SA or the Defense is arguing motions in front of him, he has a very good idea of what they are talking about.

Am I completely wrong in my assumptions?

Oh, I think Judge Perry knows more about this case than the defense. He does not come unprepared!

Now, I don't think that he has gone as far as watching all of Cindy and George Anthony's media interviews... because to put it simply, their opinions don't mean anything. They will not be questioned about the accuracy of cadaver dogs... as much as Cindy believes herself to be an expert. They will not ask Cindy to explain "junk science" as she has no idea what she it talking about. Do I think Judge Perry has read Cindy, George and Lee Anthony's depositions? YES! Do I think that he has gotten a pretty good idea of how this family works? YES! Do I believe he has noticed the glaring inconsistencies in all of their statements? YES!

It is my belief that he has read about everything that needs to be read. He knows what is relevent and he knows what it not relevent. He takes his job very seriously, as he should, and comes to court more than prepared to deal with Jose Baez and his co-workers. Love him!

 

[Turnadot]

AZlawyer, you're so nice to answer our questions. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your input on this board.

 

[nums24]

I was discussing these motions with my law professor for evidence class, who is a seated judge, and he basically said the defense HAS to file these motions. It may upset people but that is their job and it would practically be malpractice not to. These are standard evidentiary issues - trying to keep out statements and other evidence that make your client look like a bad person, so that the jury will decide her fate based on the facts of the case and the evidence presented and not because they have negative emotions about her (well, he said it differently, his analogy was more brutal).

So yeah, we don't like it but the defense is doing their job and all is not lost because the state can argue their side and the Judge will decide.

This is one of those really close call issues. The great thing is that we all get to see our system running in real time here...this is how it works for the guilty and for the innocent. LE have to make tough calls in the field, and they know the consequences, but sometimes they roll the dice. I don't think Casey is innocent, but these rights are provided to everyone, and I'd want them provided to me God forbid, if I were ever wrongly accused.

I look forward to hearing Judge Perry's opinion and I thank our verified lawyers here for their assistance in figuring this all out. As a student, this has been of great value.

I look forward to hearing this argued as well. If the accused commits a crime while in the presence of LE, how can that "evidence/statement" be excluded. It had not become clear to LE that a crime was committed immediately, thus the charges of false information. This motion has racked my brain and made me :banghead:

 

[manatee]

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

OMG, AZ! I will ROFLMAO if JB/CM uses this case law to support their claim.
it will fun to watch for that

 

[Lanie]

I look forward to hearing this argued as well. If the accused commits a crime while in the presence of LE, how can that "evidence/statement" be excluded. It had not become clear to LE that a crime was committed immediately, thus the charges of false information. This motion has racked my brain and made me :banghead:

That's right, she was originally arrested for giving false info, or something along those lines. Did she also get charged with child neglect? Hindering an investigation? My memory has taken a major nose dive in the last few months. Was she arrested then? Carp, I'm going to have to go back to the beginning and re-read some of this stuff. Then I will ponder for a while before I give my 'oh so important' non-expert, non-legal opinion on whether this interview should be admitted or not.:rocker::rocker::rocker:

 

[beach]

OMG, AZ! I will ROFLMAO if JB/CM uses this case law to support their claim.
it will fun to watch for that

Well get ready to laugh 'cause I will be shocked if they don't use it.

 

[manatee]

That's right, she was originally arrested for giving false info, or something along those lines. Did she also get charged with child neglect? Hindering an investigation? My memory has taken a major nose dive in the last few months. Was she arrested then? Carp, I'm going to have to go back to the beginning and re-read some of this stuff. Then I will ponder for a while before I give my 'oh so important' non-expert, non-legal opinion on whether this interview should be admitted or not.:rocker::rocker::rocker:

no. she was arrested at the Orange County sherriffs office after she said said she would not change her story. She had just finished looking at pics of ZFGs

 

[Marina2]

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

These are very eye opening. Thanks AZ. The bolded portions are what is concerning to me. There's no doubt that the detectives confronted her and that she was suspect to them. She was told that they knew she was lying, and she was accused of involvement in a crime (when they told her "one of two things happened...", both involved a crime on her part). I'm still trying to figure out what, if any part of the interview, amounts to being confronted with evidence of a crime. If so, even more precedence that clearly shows she was "in custody"

Maybe it is best if the jury doesn't hear this confrontational approach as the defense is surely going to go with "they never looked at anyone other than KC". Rightly so that they didn't but I think this interview would only support that assertion.

ETA: I think the only way that the ruling will go in the State's favor is if the judge will interpret the statements made by detectives that the door wasn't locked and that she came on her own free will as clear intent to inform her she was free to leave. Her agreement will show understanding of this.

 

[beach]

These are very eye opening. Thanks AZ. The bolded portions are what is concerning to me. There's no doubt that the detectives confronted her and that she was suspect to them. She was told that they knew she was lying, and she was accused of involvement in a crime (when they told her "one of two things happened...", both involved a crime on her part). I'm still trying to figure out what, if any part of the interview, amounts to being confronted with evidence of a crime. If so, even more precedence that clearly shows she was "in custody"

Maybe it is best if the jury doesn't hear this confrontational approach as the defense is surely going to go with "they never looked at anyone other than KC". Rightly so that they didn't but I think this interview would only support that assertion.

I agree. It is so darn frustrating when case law doesn't support what you want/need it to. :banghead: :anguish:

 

[Solace]

These are very eye opening. Thanks AZ. The bolded portions are what is concerning to me. There's no doubt that the detectives confronted her and that she was suspect to them. She was told that they knew she was lying, and she was accused of involvement in a crime (when they told her "one of two things happened...", both involved a crime on her part). I'm still trying to figure out what, if any part of the interview, amounts to being confronted with evidence of a crime. If so, even more precedence that clearly shows she was "in custody"

.

Okay, then the interview at Universal may be out because Yuri accuses here of lying immediately. HOWEVER, the prior interviews should be allowed - the ones at her house by Yuri. Just as good. She tells him lie after lie and in the universal one she is confronted on what he has found out. I don't see the problem.

 

[Gaia713]

That motion is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law as usual, led balloon, imo.

The facts with the defense seems to have the same problem that the facts with the defendant have - they are strangers. You would think with all the tapings and the videos that are out there, that the defense could get SOMETHING right, but I guess not.

 

[LambChop]

But wasn't it JB who brought up the fact that KC was LE only focus and that they never were looking at finding another suspect. So in order to disprove this statement by JB they would have to bring in the fact that they actually did try to look at other's but that their information was bound by the only resource they had and that was Caylee's mother. So if JB brings this up in court doesn't that open up a can of worms for defense?

 

[Marina2]

Okay, then the interview at Universal may be out because Yuri accuses here of lying immediately. HOWEVER, the prior interviews should be allowed - the ones at her house by Yuri. Just as good. She tells him lie after lie and in the universal one she is confronted on what he has found out. I don't see the problem.

I agree about the interviews at the house. No way she could be "in custody" if they left her at the house. Yuri stated at the bond hearing that she wasn't a suspect then. By the time they got to Universal, she was clearly suspect because of all the things they found out in the interim.
The Universal interviews, though very incriminating, won't be needed to show her lies and consciousness of guilt.