Florida child killing confession may be tainted

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vernal45

member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
729
Location
USA, I travel alot.
Florida child killing confession may be tainted

(CNN) -- A Florida man's confession that he kidnapped, raped and buried alive a 9-year-old girl may never be heard by a jury because, according to documents, he previously asked for a lawyer but was not given one.

John Couey, accused of murder in the death of Jessica Lunsford, asked for an attorney on March 17, the day before he confessed, according to the transcript of his questioning released by police.

At the time of his request, Couey was maintaining he had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance. His request came after Citrus County, Florida, detectives asked him if he would take a lie detector test.

The transcript reads:

Couey: "I want a lawyer here present. I want to talk to a lawyer 'cause, I mean ... if people trying to accuse something I didn't do. I didn't do it."

Detective: "OK. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. ... So if we were to do a lie detector test, you'd want to get a lawyer for that ?"

Couey: "I want to talk to a lawyer first."

But instead of providing an attorney, the questioning continued and, according to the transcripts, Couey continued answering questions without mentioning his request for an attorney again.

The next day, March 18, Couey agreed to take a polygraph, after which he confessed, sources said. According to the transcripts, his Miranda rights were read to him on several occasions over a three-day period.

The issue will undoubtedly be litigated at pretrial hearings, and is a problem for the prosecution, according to experts consulted by CNN.

"Based on the fact that he clearly invoked his right to counsel at least three times, there may be a problem," said Jeffrey Weiner, a past president of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

"...It seems to me the law enforcement officials did not scrupulously honor his invocation of his right to counsel and as a result, his statement might be not admissible."

Several other lawyers contacted by CNN echoed his analysis.

Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy, who led the search for Jessica Lunsford, said through a spokesman that "the case is rock solid" and was built professionally and thoroughly.

"Although there are some amateurs questioning the credibility of our case against Couey and the confession, when this case is said and done, Couey will be convicted," he said.

Another law enforcement source involved in the case told CNN that even if Couey's confession is suppressed by the court, there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Couey confessed after he took the lie detector test March 18, sources said.

He called investigators back into the room because, according to the sources, he told them he knew he failed the test, and was apologetic for not being honest with detectives the day before.

He then gave a lengthy statement after having his Miranda rights read to him again, according to the transcripts. He did not request an attorney after being asked if he understood his right to have one present and to refuse to answer any questions, the transcripts show.

CNN's Rich Phillips contributed to this report.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/couey.case/index.html
 
Couey: "I want to talk to a lawyer first."
But instead of providing an attorney, the questioning continued and, according to the transcripts, Couey continued answering questions without mentioning his request for an attorney again.

The officers who pressed forward need to be buried in a hole with their heads exposed, then beaten with law books for several hours. HOW STUPID CAN THEY POSSIBLY BE?!
 
It never ceases to amaze me that after all the SCOTUS rulings on the 4th., 5th.,and 6th. Amendments, that there are still officers of the law out there who persist in ignoring those rulings and thus jeopardize their cases against criminals.

Pilgrim
 
Cosmoline, agreed. But a few points...

1. The state has a pretty decent li'l argument that he only requested a lawyer with respect to taking a lie detector, not to ordinary questioning, which was what was resumed after he invoked. he said something like "I want a lawyer if you're going to polygraph me." I think the crucial fact will be, given that he was supposedly mirandized several times, is whether or not he was once again mirandized (as one of those several), in between the time he invoked, and then later actually took the test, since the confession followed the test. So it may not be thrown out.
2. They apparently have a lot of independent evidence even if the confession is thrown out, upon which to convict, thankfully.
3. This guy is not any safer in jail than out, unless he's held in isolation in the pen - look at what happened to Mr. Dahmer. Either way, this is probably a good thing (provided he's convicted).
 
This case screams for capital punishment ... now.

There is no doubt here about who did what, or the possibility of the "wrong man" being executed.

No last minute DNA to clear him of the charges.

Every time I see him on TV I think of my granddaughter that is the same age as that little girl was. I want to see him dragged out and hung with piano wire, slowly, in the nearest town square and left for the crows.

Then they can beat the three family mopes, who were in the trailer where he had the little girl locked in the closet for three days and did nothing about it, with sticks for a week or two.

Instead we're going to be treated to this guy, cleaned up from his Meth habit, in a suit and tie, talking about how bad the drugs were and how they made him do this terrible thing.

Sorry for the rant guys.

Instead just release him from the jail, but make sure they announce the date and time and his forwarding address so an appropriate reception committee can be formed. They'll need the time to get the tar to just the right consistency.
 
I agree with Cosmoline and Pilgrim

How F'n stupid can the police possibly get. The rule is "I want a lawyer"...everything ceases IMMEDIATELY!!! Those cops should be taken out back and beaten for being so damn dumb! If the guys gets off they should have to go to the family and appologize for not paying attention in any of their training.
 
There actually still is hope if he reinitiated the conversations with the police. All the first stuff would be tainted but the later comments and confessions might not be. It depends on facts that arent evident from the article.
 
Well, they'll just have to convict him with evidence other than his confession. THEY CAN DO THAT, CAN'T THEY? Not every prosecutor is as stupid as Tom Sneddon, are they?
 
Hopefully, there is other evidence independent of the confession. If the confession is tossed, and other physical evidence was derived from the confession, then it will be out under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Would hate to see someone like him walk -- even if he won't be walking long. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
How stupid can the police get? This is citrus county we're talking about. They are drawn from the local population, remember? Exposing these guys to national level scrutiny is a recipe for disaster.
 
IMO, and its not a stretch, the PO PO knew that they screwed the pooch with the confession, then released it to the public in hopes of letting possible jurors hear it.
 
The officers who pressed forward need to be buried in a hole with their heads exposed, then beaten with law books for several hours. HOW STUPID CAN THEY POSSIBLY BE?!
Uh, I honestly hope that when you asked that, you didn't really want an answer. Now, I don't really blame the cops overmuch. I think it is more important to focus on the fact he raped a 9yr old, and confessed to it. Now, to hell with the laywers, he didnt keep pressing it, so too bad for him. Y'know? He's a disgusting creep-o who doesn't deserve to go to a court of law, he should just be taken out back and have his knee-caps shot out, then his elbows, and then be made to crawl to the hanging post ((cant remember the name, sorry)) and put the rope around his own neck, and instead of the instant drop off that breaks your neck, he just get a slow drop, so he gets to suffocate and the rope cuts at his neck. Then we hit the police with sticks for a few hours. But, the rapist first, come on people!
 
Well actually if you ever swung through my neck of the woods I think you would want due process in place of "the sheriff done think he done it! get some rope!"

I have no problem killing guilty parties when they are caught in the act (catching a guy in your living room or climbing into your daughter's bedroom), but finding a crime and then connecting it to a potentially guilty party is a very different kettle of fish. We have due process because people are rarely caught in the act.
 
Hopefully, there is other evidence independent of the confession. If the confession is tossed, and other physical evidence was derived from the confession, then it will be out under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

Sadly, when police "push" Miranda and the right to counsel per the Sixth Amendment, they often lose lots of evidence gained by the tainted confession.

I had a training film I showed my classes on search and seizure which documented three horrific murder cases that were lost because the police used a tainted confession to collect evidence, rather than use collected evidence to elicit a legal confession.

Pilgrim
 
"He called investigators back into the room because, according to the sources, he told them he knew he failed the test, and was apologetic for not being honest with detectives the day before.

He then gave a lengthy statement after having his Miranda rights read to him again, according to the transcripts. He did not request an attorney after being asked if he understood his right to have one present and to refuse to answer any questions, the transcripts show."

This may not be so simple......was he under arrest at the time of the initial statement?
 
"He called investigators back into the room because, according to the sources, he told them he knew he failed the test, and was apologetic for not being honest with detectives the day before.

He then gave a lengthy statement after having his Miranda rights read to him again, according to the transcripts. He did not request an attorney after being asked if he understood his right to have one present and to refuse to answer any questions, the transcripts show."

This may not be so simple......was he under arrest at the time of the initial statement?

Centac,

If that is correct, you are right. Sadly though, a judge may not see it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top