hi everyone, new to the thread but have been following along for quite some time, waiting for the right opportunity to join in...
From what I know in my background in studying criminology, it isn't easy to prove a suspect's rights were violated hence, insist his statement would be inadmissible in court. Boyce's comments explaining that they expect that kind of thing from the defense make perfect sense, IMO.
Additionally... <snip> "On Tuesday, Dilione’s lawyer, Michael Pappa, confirmed his client had asked for a lawyer early on.“I have good reason to believe . . . that one or more lawyers for Mr. Dilione contacted investigators of the NYPD to instruct them not to question Mr. Dilione — yet these instructions were apparently ignored in violation of Mr. Dilione’s Miranda rights,” Pappa said Tuesday. “If we are right about this, it is hard to imagine how anything said to the police would be admissible as evidence for the prosecution.”
... there is a difference between suspect asking for lawyer early on, and counsel contacting LE and telling them to hold off on questioning. In the former scenario, if LE probed then yes after the fact, then yes it becomes sticky. If both scenarios occurred, then yes, it becomes sticky, but... if counsel contacted LE and told them to cease questioning before physically arriving at the precinct (which from the various links people have posted here, Pappas walked in and cut LD off from speaking when finally he did), but LD never came right out and said "I want my attorney" until after 40 hours of interrogation, then no... IMO rights had not been violated.
Long story short, there is no way to know what happened unless we were there, and the news isn't giving every tidbit into the report Boyce has in his hands. Therefore, moral of the story, there is so much gray to consider.
and IMO, defense is desperate to get LD acquitted of charges and it doesn't appear to be looking so good since he flat out told them where the body is.
The above statements are theories, as I am not an attorney.