gun-fucious
Member
Interrogation Problems Caught on Video in Md.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21410-2003Oct26.html
By Ruben Castaneda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 27, 2003; Page B01
While interrogating murder suspect Richard B. Gater last year, a Prince George's County police detective went beyond the bounds of lawful questioning and engaged in coercion, according to a judge's opinion.
As Gater, now 20, sat in an interrogation room in late December with a video camera running, Detective Tim Codero warned him that if he did not tell police where to find the gun used in a killing several days earlier, heavily armed officers could raid the home of Gater's ailing mother and possibly slam her on the ground and handcuff her as they looked for the weapon, according to the videotape.
"You don't want to put your family through this," the detective told him, adding that any harm suffered by Gater's mother in the raid would be Gater's fault. "I can look her in the eye and say, 'I didn't put you through this,' " Codero said to him.
Gater then signed one of a series of statements he made before Cordero began questioning him, some of which police characterize as incriminating. Gater said, "I'm doing this for my mother."
In a county where police have been chastised repeatedly by judges, defense lawyers and others for interrogation tactics that are called heavy-handed, the Gater interview is just the latest example to come to light.
After reviewing the video, Circuit Court Judge Thomas P. Smith ruled this month that any and all incriminating statements made by Gater could not be used against him at his trial on a murder charge. Smith said that because police had no documentation showing when Gater made which statement, he was throwing all of them out.
Last week, with the statements barred from evidence, a jury acquitted Gater of first-degree murder and convicted him of the lesser offense of second-degree murder, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. He also was convicted of first-degree assault.
For the Prince George's state's attorney's office, it was another case among many that have been damaged because of unlawful interview tactics by county police. And the case prompted a stern rebuke from Smith.
"You cannot threaten the family members of the defendant, you may not threaten the defendant and you can have no coercion, promises or threats," Smith said from the bench. "We have absolutely no question [that] portions of this videotape . . . are threats directed against the defendant's loved ones under circumstances in which he is under arrest and unable to protect them."
The judge asked that Cordero and other detectives in the case be in his courtroom when he issued his ruling on the statement. "I just don't want the message to get lost in translation," Smith said. "And I am not unmindful of the stress and difficulties faced in this county in this time with handguns and violence. But it has been the law in this state for almost 130 years that a statement must be voluntary under all of the circumstances. . . . Maryland took the lead. It hasn't changed."
State's attorney Glenn F. Ivey acknowledged that Gater's second-degree murder conviction "was not a perfect result." But he said: "I think the prosecutor did an excellent job and the police did a good job with the investigation. We were able to obtain a conviction without the statement."
Gater and a co-defendant, Tirrell A. Williams, 18, were arrested in the Dec. 17 slaying of Erik L. English, who was shot to death outside C.H. Flowers High School in Springdale after a basketball game. Police Chief Melvin C. High declined to comment on the case last week because Williams, who is charged with first-degree murder, has yet to go on trial.
Like Gater's trial, Williams's case could prove more difficult for prosecutors than they initially anticipated because of an interrogation tactic that Smith ruled improper.
The judge found that Detectives Charles Richardson and Bob Turner continued to try to question Williams about the slaying even after Williams checked "no" on a form asking whether he agreed to waive his right to remain silent. David M. Simpson, Williams's attorney, said that detectives continued to coax Williams, telling him his dead mother would want him to do the right thing. After about 45 minutes, Williams checked "yes" on another form, giving up his right to stay silent or to speak to an attorney before talking to police, Simpson said. Williams provided a videotaped statement that police said was incriminating.
Smith ruled that prosecutors may not introduce Williams's statement as evidence when they present their main case against him at trial, scheduled to begin Nov. 18. The judge has not decided whether prosecutors can use the statement to try to impeach Williams's testimony if he takes the witness stand at the trial.
Anthony M. Walker, president of the county police union, said that Codero, Richardson and Turner assert that they did nothing wrong. Codero was merely describing for Gater the reality of a police raid, which is "usually not a pretty sight," Walker said. In the other case, Walker said, the detectives maintain that Williams reinitiated the interview.
William D. Missouri, the chief administrative judge in Prince George's Circuit Court, called the violations by the detectives "scary."
"If they do this when they're being taped, what happens when they're not being taped?" Missouri said. "It troubles me as all get-out. . . . I'm not saying all officers do this. I know they don't. The fact that any officer would do this is disturbing."
Numerous examples of questionable interrogation tactics by Prince George's police have surfaced in recent years. In a series of articles in June 2001, The Washington Post described how police obtained false confessions in three homicide cases. In a fourth case detailed in the series, a detective misconstrued a suspect's statement for a confession. Charges were dropped in all those cases.
Last May, murder charges were dropped against three Arizona residents -- a 46-year-old woman and two female youths, ages 16 and 17 -- after a prosecutor determined that they had no involvement in a Prince George's slaying for which county police had arrested them. The woman and one of the teenagers later said that they were harshly questioned by police and that detectives falsely asserted in a court affidavit that they had confessed to using the stolen bank debit card of the slaying victim.
In June, the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out convictions in three Prince George's trials -- a murder case and two armed-robbery cases -- saying that police violated rules that guard against prolonged interrogations of suspects.
"They may not be laying hands on people, at least not on video, but they are still interviewing people in relays, making subtle and not so subtle threats," said Joseph M. Niland, the chief public defender in Prince George's.
Last year, county police began using video cameras in major cases. Ivey, the state's attorney, called videotaping "a giant step in the right direction."
Assistant State's Attorney Robert L. Dean said that videotaping has helped authorities combat claims of police misconduct. "Absolutely, claims of misconduct have gone down," Dean said. "Before, there were claims of misconduct, and you had nothing to refute it."
Smith is not the first Prince George's judge to throw out a statement after watching videotape.
In April, Circuit Court Judge Maureen Lamasney threw out a videotaped statement by Marcus D. Stewart, 20, who was charged in the armed carjacking of a newspaper delivery driver.
The tape showed Stewart sitting in a small interrogation room with police Cpl. John Craig. For several minutes, Craig tried to persuade Stewart to provide a written statement and reminded him that their conversation was being recorded, according to the tape.
When Stewart said he did not want to write anything without talking with a lawyer, Craig balked.
"Do you know what your lawyer's going to do for you?" Craig asked.
"What?" replied Stewart.
Craig told him that a lawyer would not care about him and would want only money.
"You think the defense lawyer and the prosecution don't go out and have breakfast and lunch together and play golf together and hang out and talk about you and how they took the money from you?" Craig said. "They could care less about you. The only thing you are to them is a check -- unless you get a public defender, and they get paid anyway, and they certainly don't give a crap. They get a big stack of cases, 50 people like you, and they have to defend them every day. You're just another number."
He then left Stewart alone for about 50 minutes. Shortly after he returned, Stewart gave an incriminating statement.
Assistant Public Defender Wendell Bates filed a motion to suppress Stewart's videotaped statement, arguing that it was involuntary because Stewart had been denied his right to see an attorney. Lamasney agreed.
Stewart had faced an array of charges punishable by more 70 years in prison upon conviction. With the case against him considerably weakened, he pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking. In August, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but 31/2 years suspended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21410-2003Oct26.html
By Ruben Castaneda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 27, 2003; Page B01
While interrogating murder suspect Richard B. Gater last year, a Prince George's County police detective went beyond the bounds of lawful questioning and engaged in coercion, according to a judge's opinion.
As Gater, now 20, sat in an interrogation room in late December with a video camera running, Detective Tim Codero warned him that if he did not tell police where to find the gun used in a killing several days earlier, heavily armed officers could raid the home of Gater's ailing mother and possibly slam her on the ground and handcuff her as they looked for the weapon, according to the videotape.
"You don't want to put your family through this," the detective told him, adding that any harm suffered by Gater's mother in the raid would be Gater's fault. "I can look her in the eye and say, 'I didn't put you through this,' " Codero said to him.
Gater then signed one of a series of statements he made before Cordero began questioning him, some of which police characterize as incriminating. Gater said, "I'm doing this for my mother."
In a county where police have been chastised repeatedly by judges, defense lawyers and others for interrogation tactics that are called heavy-handed, the Gater interview is just the latest example to come to light.
After reviewing the video, Circuit Court Judge Thomas P. Smith ruled this month that any and all incriminating statements made by Gater could not be used against him at his trial on a murder charge. Smith said that because police had no documentation showing when Gater made which statement, he was throwing all of them out.
Last week, with the statements barred from evidence, a jury acquitted Gater of first-degree murder and convicted him of the lesser offense of second-degree murder, punishable by up to 30 years in prison. He also was convicted of first-degree assault.
For the Prince George's state's attorney's office, it was another case among many that have been damaged because of unlawful interview tactics by county police. And the case prompted a stern rebuke from Smith.
"You cannot threaten the family members of the defendant, you may not threaten the defendant and you can have no coercion, promises or threats," Smith said from the bench. "We have absolutely no question [that] portions of this videotape . . . are threats directed against the defendant's loved ones under circumstances in which he is under arrest and unable to protect them."
The judge asked that Cordero and other detectives in the case be in his courtroom when he issued his ruling on the statement. "I just don't want the message to get lost in translation," Smith said. "And I am not unmindful of the stress and difficulties faced in this county in this time with handguns and violence. But it has been the law in this state for almost 130 years that a statement must be voluntary under all of the circumstances. . . . Maryland took the lead. It hasn't changed."
State's attorney Glenn F. Ivey acknowledged that Gater's second-degree murder conviction "was not a perfect result." But he said: "I think the prosecutor did an excellent job and the police did a good job with the investigation. We were able to obtain a conviction without the statement."
Gater and a co-defendant, Tirrell A. Williams, 18, were arrested in the Dec. 17 slaying of Erik L. English, who was shot to death outside C.H. Flowers High School in Springdale after a basketball game. Police Chief Melvin C. High declined to comment on the case last week because Williams, who is charged with first-degree murder, has yet to go on trial.
Like Gater's trial, Williams's case could prove more difficult for prosecutors than they initially anticipated because of an interrogation tactic that Smith ruled improper.
The judge found that Detectives Charles Richardson and Bob Turner continued to try to question Williams about the slaying even after Williams checked "no" on a form asking whether he agreed to waive his right to remain silent. David M. Simpson, Williams's attorney, said that detectives continued to coax Williams, telling him his dead mother would want him to do the right thing. After about 45 minutes, Williams checked "yes" on another form, giving up his right to stay silent or to speak to an attorney before talking to police, Simpson said. Williams provided a videotaped statement that police said was incriminating.
Smith ruled that prosecutors may not introduce Williams's statement as evidence when they present their main case against him at trial, scheduled to begin Nov. 18. The judge has not decided whether prosecutors can use the statement to try to impeach Williams's testimony if he takes the witness stand at the trial.
Anthony M. Walker, president of the county police union, said that Codero, Richardson and Turner assert that they did nothing wrong. Codero was merely describing for Gater the reality of a police raid, which is "usually not a pretty sight," Walker said. In the other case, Walker said, the detectives maintain that Williams reinitiated the interview.
William D. Missouri, the chief administrative judge in Prince George's Circuit Court, called the violations by the detectives "scary."
"If they do this when they're being taped, what happens when they're not being taped?" Missouri said. "It troubles me as all get-out. . . . I'm not saying all officers do this. I know they don't. The fact that any officer would do this is disturbing."
Numerous examples of questionable interrogation tactics by Prince George's police have surfaced in recent years. In a series of articles in June 2001, The Washington Post described how police obtained false confessions in three homicide cases. In a fourth case detailed in the series, a detective misconstrued a suspect's statement for a confession. Charges were dropped in all those cases.
Last May, murder charges were dropped against three Arizona residents -- a 46-year-old woman and two female youths, ages 16 and 17 -- after a prosecutor determined that they had no involvement in a Prince George's slaying for which county police had arrested them. The woman and one of the teenagers later said that they were harshly questioned by police and that detectives falsely asserted in a court affidavit that they had confessed to using the stolen bank debit card of the slaying victim.
In June, the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out convictions in three Prince George's trials -- a murder case and two armed-robbery cases -- saying that police violated rules that guard against prolonged interrogations of suspects.
"They may not be laying hands on people, at least not on video, but they are still interviewing people in relays, making subtle and not so subtle threats," said Joseph M. Niland, the chief public defender in Prince George's.
Last year, county police began using video cameras in major cases. Ivey, the state's attorney, called videotaping "a giant step in the right direction."
Assistant State's Attorney Robert L. Dean said that videotaping has helped authorities combat claims of police misconduct. "Absolutely, claims of misconduct have gone down," Dean said. "Before, there were claims of misconduct, and you had nothing to refute it."
Smith is not the first Prince George's judge to throw out a statement after watching videotape.
In April, Circuit Court Judge Maureen Lamasney threw out a videotaped statement by Marcus D. Stewart, 20, who was charged in the armed carjacking of a newspaper delivery driver.
The tape showed Stewart sitting in a small interrogation room with police Cpl. John Craig. For several minutes, Craig tried to persuade Stewart to provide a written statement and reminded him that their conversation was being recorded, according to the tape.
When Stewart said he did not want to write anything without talking with a lawyer, Craig balked.
"Do you know what your lawyer's going to do for you?" Craig asked.
"What?" replied Stewart.
Craig told him that a lawyer would not care about him and would want only money.
"You think the defense lawyer and the prosecution don't go out and have breakfast and lunch together and play golf together and hang out and talk about you and how they took the money from you?" Craig said. "They could care less about you. The only thing you are to them is a check -- unless you get a public defender, and they get paid anyway, and they certainly don't give a crap. They get a big stack of cases, 50 people like you, and they have to defend them every day. You're just another number."
He then left Stewart alone for about 50 minutes. Shortly after he returned, Stewart gave an incriminating statement.
Assistant Public Defender Wendell Bates filed a motion to suppress Stewart's videotaped statement, arguing that it was involuntary because Stewart had been denied his right to see an attorney. Lamasney agreed.
Stewart had faced an array of charges punishable by more 70 years in prison upon conviction. With the case against him considerably weakened, he pleaded guilty to one count of carjacking. In August, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but 31/2 years suspended.
