2011.01.04 Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements to LE

[LC446]

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.

Thanks for this information! It never occurred to me that she was in custody at the time of the Universal interview but it does look like Florida law would see it that way. In Texas, Miranda is required if it is a "custodial" interrogation or if the suspect is called in for an interview and the intent is to arrest them at the end of the interview, in other words you knew that you were going to arrest them when you called them in. I was under the incorrect assumption that if she was not under arrest then she wasn't in custody. That's what I get for being in "Texas mode", LOL! But I can clearly see the argument that they are going to make and unfortunately I think it might work. Dang!

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

I agree that the house interview is much more likely to come in. Yuri does start and end that interview by saying that if she is "fabricating" the story this is the time to tell him, and he does ask her specifically whether she caused any injury to Caylee. But overall, it appears that he is focused on gathering information from her in order to pursue the alleged kidnapper, rather than on getting her to admit involvement.

 

[Amil]

: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!

How will I keep from giggling in court when this comes up?

 

[Solace]

It matters that she went without physical coercion. Whether she went "of her own free will" is one of the questions. When a deputy says, "Would you mind coming with me?" sometimes courts find that you are not acting "of your own free will" when you agree.

It WOULD definitely have mattered if they had actually told her that she could leave at any time, but I can't find that in the interview transcript.

But Yuri does say at the beginning of the Universal interview, the door is NOT locked. We have the door closed for privacy only. If that means anything. He says this with EVERYONE he interviews.

 

[AZlawyer]

But Yuri does say at the beginning of the Universal interview, the door is NOT locked. We have the door closed for privacy only. If that means anything. He says this with EVERYONE he interviews.

IMO that is not good enough to avoid a finding that the person is "in custody," based on the case law I posted earlier. If he said, "You are free to leave at any time," that would have been much better, in hindsight.

 

[Turnadot]

I'm thinking it doesn't matter of the Universal Q&A gets excluded, because her lies are documented from her own hand in her written statement, including that BS about getting a phone call from Zanny the nanny. Yeah, I'd love for the Universal talk stay in, but really, she's still sunk without it, imo.

 

[LambChop]

Well if SA can't bring in the interview, neither can defense as they did in the bond hearing about how cooperative KC was during the interview.

 

[MissJames]

Hi AZ,
I thought at the very beginning of the Universal video Yuri points out to ICA that the door has been closed for privacy only and asks her if she understands she is free to leave ,the door is not locked. I'll look after kids go to bed.
If that statement was made would the interview be allowed in court?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZ,
I thought at the very beginning of the Universal video Yuri points out to ICA that the door has been closed for privacy only and asks her if she understands she is free to leave ,the door is not locked. I'll look after kids go to bed.
If that statement was made would the interview be allowed in court?

It looks like he says the door is unlocked and closed for privacy only, but doesn't say she's free to leave. Based on the Florida case law, IMO the "free to leave" type of language is important if you want to show that the person is not in custody.

 

[Just Jayla]

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?

BBM-And JB is just plain wrong here, anyway...

-They certainly did follow up with Zenaida Gonzalez, there is a lawsuit to show for it
-If the dossier on Jesse was not a thorough "investigation," I dunno what is-The information on JG, IIRC, was passed on to the defense in a "proper" discovery exchange, meaning the state did have interest in at least looking to see what JG was all about.

You are right about the gigantic can of slimy worms, too. Since the first offering by KC to LE as to where Caylee was last seen was the story about Sawgrass...and they follow-up and find out no Zenaida lives at Sawgrass...How were they to start looking for someone when they cannot even pinpoint where Caylee was? Were the police to scour all of Orange, Florida, the U.S., with no information whatsoever? Impossible and stupid.

 

[Just Jayla]

It looks like he says the door is unlocked and closed for privacy only, but doesn't say she's free to leave. Based on the Florida case law, IMO the "free to leave" type of language is important if you want to show that the person is not in custody.

She also got a ride there with them, which could be construed as though she felt she couldn't leave because she would be stranded there, and they brought her into a room that she would not normally have access to, they only were able to access the room because Universal was facilitating official police business. Awwwkkward if she just rolls out into the hallway with police at her heels. Suppose it could be made to look like an ambush-Which it was, but she asked for it, literally.

 

[Intermezzo]

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.

At the bond hearing..did Yuri reveal she was now a Person of Interest?

 

[MissJames]

It looks like he says the door is unlocked and closed for privacy only, but doesn't say she's free to leave. Based on the Florida case law, IMO the "free to leave" type of language is important if you want to show that the person is not in custody.

I went back to read it .....drats! I guess I "heard " what I wanted to hear.He sort of fades off after discussing the door obviously being unlocked.
I knew you were probably right ,but I was hoping .......:innocent:
Could the detectives state of mind make a difference? A 2 year old was missing and might be in danger.Wouldn't questioning the mom about recent events be typical? It was too early to take anyone into custody,wasn't it?
Law is so complicated :banghead:

 

[LambChop]

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.

But they did. They gave KC a series of photos of ZFG and others and she could not identify any of them. One picture was the ZG who was at Sawgrass looking for an apartment that now has the lawsuit. So LE did look for the very person who supposedly had Caylee according to KC's statement. Nada. Since they found she was lying about critical information, such as where she worked, where she dropped Caylee off at different locations, and with the 31 days they were able to determine anything she said was not credible. She was lying and they had buckets of proof.

I'm sure they continued to look to find ZFG but when the others, Jeff Hopkins, Juliet Lewis, etc. were found to be fictitious I think the focus was on KC 100%. The fact that she refused any help to find her daughter would only lead to one conclusion for anyone who had a functional brain. So if defense brings that up they would be dead in the water I would think. jmo

 

[MissJames]

She also got a ride there with them, which could be construed as though she felt she couldn't leave because she would be stranded there, and they brought her into a room that she would not normally have access to, they only were able to access the room because Universal was facilitating official police business. Awwwkkward if she just rolls out into the hallway with police at her heels. Suppose it could be made to look like an ambush-Which it was, but she asked for it, literally.

I'm sure one of her co-workers would have given her a ride home .

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

But didn't they arrest her for lying to the LE after that lengthy interview at Universal, where she admitted freely that she lied about everything? What option did the LE have at that point? They were seeking a missing and endangered child.

I think Missie Muffin was unaware you could be arrested for lying to the LE during a search for a missing child. She certainly didn't appear intimidated one iota.

 

[Just Jayla]

I went back to read it .....drats! I guess I "heard " what I wanted to hear.He sort of fades off after discussing the door obviously being unlocked.
I knew you were probably right ,but I was hoping .......:innocent:
Could the detectives state of mind make a difference? A 2 year old was missing and might be in danger.Wouldn't questioning the mom about recent events be typical? It was too early to take anyone into custody,wasn't it?
Law is so complicated :banghead:

That's what I had hoped and seems logical enough...but I think once they found out she had lied to them about Ricardo's/the retirment home, etc., they should have arrested her for obstructing the investigation.
Obviously they knew they had to try to get information or a confession out of her before she got an attorney. That may read like they were trying to cheat the system, but to me, they were just trying to find a missing 2-year old that was likely in danger if not dead.
If we really, really scrutinize the Universal interview and what events occurred during and after that interview, KC did not provide any revelations to LE. In essence, it would not have mattered if they arrested her before Universal or when they actually did, she did not provide any truthful info. So for them to have held off on Miranda was fruitless anyway and I don't think anything Casey has said beyond her interview at home will help clarify anything nor will it prevent the jury from understanding what liar she is-There are plenty of other witnesses and evidence that will make it clear that KC is a liar.

 

[Intermezzo]

Anyone know where I can find a link to KC's texts to Tony about being handcuffed. Thanks very much.

Can anyone answer Solace's question above?

Is that the IM exchange in the early morning of July16?
I read the exchange between the 2, can't find it now, but I don't remember the "being handcuffed part"

Have been looking....Still looking.

 

[Just Jayla]

I'm sure one of her co-workers would have given her a ride home .

Pfft, how? Jeffrey Michael Hopkins car was wrecked in an accident heading to Pensicola (but he's fine) and Juliette Lewis just scored a Hollywood film, so she was off for a few months.
Without access to the flying Delorean from the Back to the Future ride, how the heck was she supposed to hoof it back to Hope Spring?

 

[Marina2]

But they did. They gave KC a series of photos of ZFG and others and she could not identify any of them. One picture was the ZG who was at Sawgrass looking for an apartment that now has the lawsuit. So LE did look for the very person who supposedly had Caylee according to KC's statement. Nada. Since they found she was lying about critical information, such as where she worked, where she dropped Caylee off at different locations, and with the 31 days they were able to determine anything she said was not credible. She was lying and they had buckets of proof.

I'm sure they continued to look to find ZFG but when the others, Jeff Hopkins, Juliet Lewis, etc. were found to be fictitious I think the focus was on KC 100%. The fact that she refused any help to find her daughter would only lead to one conclusion for anyone who had a functional brain. So if defense brings that up they would be dead in the water I would think. jmo

Yes they did. I should have put "Rightly so if they didn't..." They put every bit of effort into finding the "kidnapper" of Caylee as they should have.