Thomas William Rigterink v. State of Florida

SC05-2162

THOMAS WILLIAM RIGTERINK V STATE OF FLORIDA
sEPTEMBER 11 2008
>>> PLEASE RISE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>>> GOOD MORNING.
OUR LAST
CASE ON THE AGENDA IS THOMAS
RIGTERINK VERSUS THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS ANDREA NORGARD
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
MR. RIGTERINK IN THIS CASE,
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A
LONG TIME THERE IS ACTUALLY
A HOME-TIME FACE TO MY
RIGHT.
>> INITIALLY, WOULD YOU -- AND
I WOULD DIRECT THIS TO BOTH
YOU AND TO THE STATE --
CERTAINLY THE QUESTION AS
TO THE VERBIAGE IN THE
MORNING ITSELF IS GOING TO
BE -- THE JUDGMENT, AND
WE KNOW WHERE THAT IS, IT
SEEMS TO ME -- I'M STRUGGLING
WITH THE RAMIREZ ELEMENTS
AND WHAT HAPPENED DURING
THIS DISCUSSION THAT WAS
TAPED.
AND AFTER WATCHING IT,
I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF
THESE, THIS WAS THE MOST
GENTLE CONVERSATIONAL TYPE
DISCUSSION I THINK THAT I
HAVE PROBABLY EVER SEEN.
BUT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT --
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- I
DIDN'T FIND ANY STATEMENT
WITH REGARD TO "YOU ARE FREE
TO LEAVE," THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
I WAS THERE FOR QUITE A
WHILE.
THE FOUR HOURS, I REALIZED IT
IS ONLY 30 MINUTES, BUT IT
IS ON THE TAPE, NOTHING ELSE
IS CHALLENGED.
BUT COULD YOU
TALK ABOUT THOSE OTHER
RAMIREZ, ELEMENTS THAT WE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT, AND LET'S
ASSUME THAT THERE IS A
PROBLEM WITH THE MIRANDA
WARNING.
BUT WHERE DOES THAT
GET US IN THIS CASE?
>> -- THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
MY INTENT, OBVIOUSLY BEFORE
WE REACHED THE ISSUE OF
MIRANDA WARNING WE FIRST
HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT WAS THE
ISSUE THE TRIAL COURT
CONDITIONED HER OPINION ON,
MIRANDA WAS, YES, RIGTERINK
WAS NOT IN CUSTODY AT ANY
POINT IN TIME FROM THE
MOMENT THAT HE WAS PICKED
UP, AT HIS --
>> HE WAS NOT PICKED UP, HE
WAS NOT PICKED UP.
HIS PARENTS TOOK HIM DOWN; ISN'T
THAT CORRECT?
>> IT IS CORRECT THAT HE
RODE IN HIS PARENTS'
CAR TO THE POLICE STATION,
HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE IT
CAN BE OVERLOOKED IN
EVALUATING THE TOTALITY OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS
THE STANDARD UNDER RAMIREZ,
AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO THE
TRIAL COURT THAT TRIAL
COUNSEL WAS NOT SEEKING TO
SUPPRESS ANYTHING PRIOR TO
THE RECORDED STATEMENT, I
DON'T BELIEVE IN A
CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE
ONLY LOOK TO THE THIRTY SECOND PRIOR
TO TYPE BEING ON --
>> THAT IS NOT THE
SUGGESTION, BUT YOU SAID HE
WAS PICKED UP.
HE WAS NOT
PICKED UP.
THEY WERE IS
THERE, MADE TWO
APPOINTMENTS, TO GO HAVE THE
PRINTS TAKEN, DIDN'T SHOW UP
FOR THOSE, AND BASICALLY
THEY HAD COME BACK THAT
MORNING HIS MOTHER CONTACTED
LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT HE WAS
READY TO GIVE THOSE PRINTS
AND WENT DOWNTOWN WITH HIS
FAMILY.
>> I BELIEVE THE COURT
CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT
THAT THIS WAS NOT A
SITUATION SITUATION SUCH AS
IN OTHER CASES, WHERE THERE
WAS NO POLICE CONTACT
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE
DECISION TO GO TO THE POLICE
STATION.
>> THAT IS FINE. LET'S
NOT FIGHT ON THAT POINT.
LET'S KEEP GOING, BECAUSE I
THINK THERE'S IMPORTANT
THINGS HERE.
>> WHAT THE COURT HAS TO
CONSIDER IS THE INCREASING
LEVEL OF INTENSITY AND
NARROWING OF THE INVESTIGATORY
PROCESS GOING ON THAT LED US
TO THE MORNING OF OCTOBER
16, WHEN MRS. RIGTERINK
CALLED THE POLICE, AS SHE
HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO, SO
THIS WAS NOT A SITUATION OF
THE POLICE OFFICERS SITTING
AT A POLICE SUBSTATION
WAITING FOR MR. RIGTERINK TO
SOMETIME COME OR SOMETIME
NOT COME.
THERE WAS THE CLEAR INTENT
AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT WAS
INVESTIGATING THIS CRIME TO
GET MR. RIGTERINK'S PRINTS.
I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT
TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE
SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE,
WHERE MR. RIGTERINK WAS NOT
GIVEN THE OPTION OF OH, HEY,
WE ARE STANDING IN YOUR MOM'S
KITCHEN, YOU
DIDN'T COME ON THE 10TH, YOU
DIDN'T COME ON THE 13th, CAN
YOU COME TOMORROW?
YOU JUST GOT OUT OF A
SHOWER, YOU ARE IN SHORTS, IN A
T-SHIRT, YOUR MOM HAD
TO DRIVE YOU TODAY, SO
WHY DON'T YOU COME TOMORROW.
>> I THOUGHT THAT IS -- WE'RE
DWELLING ON WHAT HAPPENED
THERE TO BEGIN WITH, I WAS
UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM
READING THE PRETRIAL COURT'S
-- READING THE OTHER
MATERIALS THAT WHAT HAPPENED
WAS THAT ON THAT PARTICULAR
DAY HIS MOTHER CALLED DOWN
TO THE STATION, SAID THAT HE
IS HERE AND CAN GIVE THE
PRINTS, AND THAT HE HAS SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT SOME OTHER
PEOPLE.
WAS NOT THAT WHAT -- AND SO
-- THAT MAY BE INVOLVED IN
THIS MURDER THAT HE WANTS TO
GIVE YOU.
ISN'T THAT WHAT HAPPENED ON
THAT DAY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT MRS.
RIGTERINK PLACED A PHONE
CALL BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN
INSTRUCTED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT IF SHE HAD
CONTACT WITH HER SON THAT
SHE WAS TO NOTIFY THE
POLICE.
ALTHOUGH THAT
TESTIMONY WAS NOT IN THE
SUPPRESSION HEARING, THAT
CLEARLY WAS THE TESTIMONY
THAT WAS PRESENTED TO
DETECTIVE CONNOLLY DURING
THE TRIAL AFTER THE --
>> YOU HAD A CHOICE HERE --
THEY DIDN'T HAVE -- I MEAN
EVEN THOUGH THE DETECTIVE MAY
HAVE ASKED THEM TO "CALL US
IF YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH
YOUR SON," I MEAN THEY REALLY
HAD A CHOICE TO DO THAT,
DIDN'T THEY.
>> I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR,
THAT HE IS -- YES, THEY HAD THE
CHOICE NOT TO MAKE THE CALL.
BUT, AGAIN, LOOKING AT WHAT
SOMEONE'S BELIEF IS, AGAIN
WHETHER SHE --
MR. RIGTERINK WAS IN CUSTODY
AS A SUBJECT, I BELIEVE, BASED
ON WHAT --
>> HELP US -- WE, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE
A VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF
TIME.
>> YES.
>> AND IF I'M READING WHAT
YOU ARE ADVOCATING RIGHT NOW
IS THAT YOU SEEM TO BE
SAYING THAT IT IS YOUR VIEW
THAT HE WAS IN CUSTODY THE
MINUTE THAT HE GOT IN HIS
PARENTS' CAR, AND WAS BEING
TAKEN TO THE STATION, AND
THAT THIS IS REALLY WHAT
YOUR ARGUMENT IS GOING TO BE
ADVANCED ON US TODAY, IS
THAT HE WAS IN CUSTODY THEN,
AND THAT THAT IS REALLY THE
END OF THE STORY.
AND THEN I THINK THAT IS
WHY IF WE ARE -- UNUSUALLY
-- AT LEAST THE -- CASE LAW
THAT HAS COME CLOSEST,
YOU KNOW, TO RESOLVING THESE
ISSUES REALLY HAS INVOLVED A
MORE INTRICATE DISCUSSION OF
ONCE HE GOT TO THE STATION,
ONCE HE GAVE HIS
FINGERPRINTS, NOW HE IS
PLACED INTO THE ROOM, BUT IF
I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT,
YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT IS
CRITICAL TO YOUR POSITION
THAT WE FIND THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED NOT FINDING HE WAS IN
CUSTODY THE MINUTE THAT THE
POLICE HAD HIM PLACED IN HIS
PARENT'S CAR, AND WAS
ON THE WAY TO THE STATION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
ADVANCING?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
>> TELL US WHERE YOU BELIEVE
YOU HAVE THE STRONGEST CASE
FOR OVERRULING THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE AS FAR AS
CUSTODY OCCURRING WITH THE
DEFENDANT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT BASED ON
THE -- REPRESENTATIONS MADE
TO THE TRIAL COURT BY TRIAL
COUNSEL, OF WHOM I WAS NOT,
THAT I'M BOUND TO RELY UPON
THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED TO
THE TRIAL COURT AS TO WHEN
CUSTODY BEGAN AND THAT --
WOULD BE AT THE TIME --
>> WHEN DID CUSTODY BEGIN?
>> AT THE TIME THAT
MR. RIGTERINK MADE THE
STATEMENT AFTER HE -- THERE
WERE FOUR STATEMENTS THAT
WERE MADE.
>> WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH
ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT --
>> WELL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THAT WHEN YOU ARE -- WHAT
WAS THE DETERMINING FACTOR,
WHAT IS IN MR. RIGTERINK'S
MIND AT THE POINT WHEN HE
SAYS I WILL TELL YOU THE
WHOLE STORY AT THAT TIME.
>> OBVIOUSLY --
>> WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE
ARGUMENTS IN YOUR BRIEF, AND
THE GENERAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> CORRECT.
>> HOW ABOUT GETTING RIGHT
DOWN TO THE NITTY-GRITTY
THEN, IF YOU FEEL YOU ARE
BOUND BY TRIAL COUNSEL'S
STATEMENT THAT HERE IS WHEN,
YOU KNOW, CUSTODY OCCURRED,
AND HOW ABOUT FOCUSING ON
THAT FOR US THEN.
>> BECAUSE --
>> WHAT HAPPENED THEN?
>> THE POINT IN TIME,
THEN, THE MIRANDA WARNING IS
GIVEN.
>> THIS IS AFTER THE
OFFICERS RECEIVED THE
INFORMATION --
>> CORRECT.
>> -- THAT THE FINGERPRINTS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE
FINGERPRINTS LEFT AT THE
RESIDENCE OF THE VICTIM; IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> AND IT IS AFTER?
OKAY.
>> IT IS AFTER AN ALMOST
FOUR-HOUR INTERROGATION PROCESS
THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON, AND
I THINK IF THIS COURT
LOOKED TO SOME OF ITS PRIOR
DECISIONS, SUCH AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN POLLARD, THE
QUESTION IS, CLEARLY, WHEN
WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO GIVE
MIRANDA, AND UNDER THE
ARGUMENT ADVANCED TO THE
TRIAL COURT THAT I'M BOUND
TO RELY ON TO THIS COURT AND
AM RELYING ON IS THAT IN
LIGHT OF ALL THAT HAD GONE
ON, AT THE MOMENT
MR. RIGTERINK MADE THE
STATEMENT "I WILL NOW TELL
YOU THE TRUTH."
>> YOU ARE NOT DISPUTING THE
ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENTS
THAT CAME PRIOR TO THAT
TIME?
>> YOUR HONOR, I CANNOT BASED
ON THE REPRESENTATION OF
TRIAL COUNSEL.
>> I APPRECIATE,
OBVIOUSLY, YOUR CANDOR ABOUT
THAT.
SO YOU FOLLOW THROUGH THEN.
>> RIGHT.
BECAUSE OF THAT,
THOUGH, WHAT IS -- CRITICAL
FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE
IS WHEN A REASONABLE -- WHETHER
A REASONABLE PERSON AT THAT
POINT IN THE INTERROGATION
PROCESS, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE
THAT TO REACH THAT POINT
YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER, AGAIN,
UNDER RAMIREZ TOTALITY WHAT
LED TO THAT POINT.
>> WHAT POLICE TOLD
HIM --
>> WE NOW HAVE THE RESULTS
OF THE FINGERPRINTS.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND CONFRONTED HIM WITH
THE FACT THAT THOSE WERE HIS
FINGERPRINTS.
>> CORRECT.
>> THEN WHEN HE OFFERED WHAT
IS REFERRED TO BY DETECTIVE
CONNOLLY AS THE THIRD
STORY, MR. RIGTERINK WAS
CONFRONTED WITH PRINT
MATCHES.
HE THEN GAVE A STATEMENT
THAT EXPLAINED THE PRESENCE
OF THE PRINT, BUT DID NOT
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
CRIME.
>> -- WHERE WAS THE MIRANDA --
>> AFTER THAT, BETWEEN WHAT
OCCURRED WAS THEN THE POLICE
OFFICER SAID TO HIM, WE
DON'T BELIEVE YOU, YOU ARE
NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
WE STILL DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.
>> OKAY.
AND THEN MIRANDA
WAS -- THE MIRANDA RIGHTS WERE
READ.
>> THEN MR. RIGTERINK --
>> AGAIN -- AND SO I WANT TO
GET STRAIGHT IN MY MIND
WHERE YOU WHERE.
THIS CONTEST
BEGINS THAT YOU ARE MAKING
THIS -- AT THAT POINT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT AT THE
POINT WHEN --
>> WHAT HAPPENED AT THE
TRIAL COURT?
WHAT IS THE -- WHAT AT THE
SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHERE IN
POINT IN TIME WAS -- THE POINT
AFTER THE MIRANDA WAS READ
OR -- BEFORE --
>> DEFENSE COUNSEL AT THE
TRIAL AT THE MOTION TO
SUPPRESS HEARING -- IF THE
TRIAL COURT READS THE RECORD
AS SUPPRESSION HEARING THE
ORIGINAL MOTION TO
SUPPRESS DID NOT ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF CUSTODY.
>> JUST SO WE -- BECAUSE WE'VE
GOT THE TRANSCRIPT, HIS
COUNSEL AGREED THAT HE HAD
INITIALLY TRAVELED TO THE
SHERIFFS OFFICE VOLUNTAIRLY.
>> CORRECT, AND WHAT THEY
SAID IS -- INTERROGATION AT
LEAST BECAME CUSTODIAL
WHEN THE POLICE, ONE,
CONFRONTED HIM WITH TANGIBLE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
HIS GUILT, REPEATEDLY ACCUSED
HIM OF --
>> NOW, GOING BACK TO
JUSTICE'S QUESTION, ARE YOU
SAYING THAT ONCE THEY GOT
THIS OTHER EVIDENCE BACK, AT
THAT POINT CUSTODY --
>> CORRECT.
>> -- THEY WOULD -- TO ARREST
HIM AT THAT POINT WOULD
THEY?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE AT THE POINT THE
MATCH OF A BLOODY
FINGERPRINT FROM A CRIME
SCENE, AND HAVING THAT MATCH
COME BACK CONCLUSIVE TO
MR. RIGTERINK, COUPLED WITH
THE OTHER INFORMATION THEY
ALREADY KNEW THAT HE HAD
PROVIDED TO THEM THAT HE
KNEW --
>> BUT I'M HAVING TROUBLE
WITH -- IN TRYING TO THINK OF
ALL OUR PRECEDENT,
SOMETIMES -- DO WE HAVE ANY
CASES THAT SAY, WELL, YOU
VOLUNTARILY CAME, YOU ARE IN
THE SAME SITUATION, BUT NOW
BECAUSE -- AND, AGAIN, I WISH
POLICE WOULD JUST --
>> -- MIRANDA WARNING AT THE
BEGINNING, NOT WAIT TILL
AFTER A CONFESSION.
>> WE WOULDN'T BE HERE --
>> BUT THAT IS NOT THE LAW, THEY
DON'T HAVE TO DO IT UNLESS
THEY ARE IN CUSTODY.
SO WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT
OF OUR CASE LAW SAYS THAT AT
THAT POINT WHEN THEY ARE
ACCUSING HIM THAT IF -- LET ME
FINISH THE QUESTION -- THAT
A PREVIOUS VOLUNTARY
ENCOUNTER BECOMES A
CUSTODIAL ENCOUNTER.
>> I BELIEVE YOU LOOK TO THE
FOURTH FACT -- EXCUSE ME IT WOULD
IT BE THE THIRD FACTOR UNDER
RAMIREZ, BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT
IS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS,
THAT IN AND OF ITSELF MIGHT
NOT NECESSARILY TIP THAT
SCHEME TO SAYING WE WENT
FROM A POLICE CITIZEN
ENCOUNTER OR SOMETHING, THAT
DID NOT RESULT IN THE
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION TO,
NOW, WHAT A REASONABLE
PERSON WHEN TOLD WE HAVE A
MATCH BETWEEN A BLOODY
HANDPRINT AT THE SCENE OF
THIS DOUBLE HOMICIDE, AND IT
IS YOUR HANDPRINT -- WHAT
THIS COURT MUST CONSIDER IS
AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME WOULD
MR. RIGTERINK FEEL THAT HE
WAS IN CUSTODY OR FEEL HE
WAS FREE TO LEAVE.
>> I THOUGHT THE -- IS
THERE CASE LA, THAT SUPPORTS
THAT POSITION?
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION
THE PREVAILING LAW THAT IS
THE CONFRONTATION WITH
EVIDENCE AS TO AN INDIVIDUAL
THAT IS OF A -- WHETHER
CIRCUMSTANCES DIRECT OR
OTHERWISE, DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFORM WHAT
IS OTHERWISE A VOLUNTARY
INTENTIONAL DISCUSSION.
WELL INFORMED, KNOWLEDGEABLE,
INTO CUSTODIAL DISCUSSION.
>> I WOULD NOT DISAGREE THAT
AGAIN WITH -- AND I BELIEVE I
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THAT
FACTOR ALONE AND IN AND OF
ITSELF --
>> THAT IS NOT --
>> -- DOES NOT CAUSE AUTOMATIC --
>> WHAT IS THE NEXT ONE?
>> BUT IT DOES REQUIRE
CONSIDERATION OF THAT
ELEMENT ALONG WITH -- AGAIN,
UNDER RAMIREZ, THE OTHER
FACTOR.
>> GO AHEAD TO THE OTHER
FACTOR.
GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
>> AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE OTHER
FACTORS THAT WERE PRESENT
UNDER RAMIREZ THAT WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER IS I DON'T THINK --
EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT
SUGGESTING CUSTODY BEGAN THE
SECOND HE ENTERED THE
INTERVIEW ROOM, BUT I DON'T
THINK WE CAN IGNORE THE FACT
OF WHERE THIS INTERVIEW ROOM
WAS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT --
WHETHER MR. RIGTERINK WAS
TOLD "YOUR BLOODY HANDPRINT
IS AT THE SCENE" THAT HE FELT
THAT HE COULD THEN SAY,
STAND UP, WALK OUT OF THAT
INTERVIEW ROOM, AND WALK OUT
THE DOOR.
>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT
WOULD BE THE CASE IN EVERY
SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE IN
SOMEWHAT OF A PRIVATE ROOM
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT
WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH A
BLANKET RULE.
>> NO, IT IS NOT.
I ALLEGE THAT
IN THE BRIEF.
IT IS ANOTHER
FACTOR TO CONSIDER, AND THE
MERE FACT OF PRESENCE IN -- OR
THE INTERROGATION IS TAKING
PLACE, IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT
FACILITY, AGAIN, DOES NOT IN
AND OF ITSELF --
I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU CAN
DO TO REACH A DETERMINATION
IS TO LOOK AT EACH OF THESE
FACTORS IN ISOLATION, AGAIN,
UNDER RAMIREZ WE LOOK AT
EACH OF THEM FROM THAT
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, AT
THE POINT IN TIME THAT
MR. RIGTERINK WAS WHAT HE
HAD BEEN THROUGH, IF
CONFRONTED WITH THE FACTS
THAT "THIS IS YOUR BLOODY
FINGERPRINT AT THE SCENE,"
WOULD HAVE -- IF HE WOULD AT
THAT POINT IN TIME HE WAS
NOT IN CUSTODY.
>> I GUESS THE PROBLEM I'M
HAVING IS THAT, AGAIN, HE
VOLUNTARILY WENT IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE AN ELIMINATION PRINT TO
EXCULPATE HIMSELF, AT LEAST
THAT IS WHAT HE
VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO DO,
WHEN HE GOT THERE HE WAS
TAKEN TO THIS -- BY A --
INSULATED INTERROGATION ROOM.
IS THERE ANY TESTIMONY
THAT -- SEE, BECAUSE THAT
WOULD BE A POINT, A LOGICAL
POINT TO SAY DID HE AGREE.
HE MUST HAVE AGREED TO GO IN
THERE.
DID HE FEEL HE DIDN'T
HAVE A CHOICE?
WERE THERE FINDINGS MADE ON
THAT ISSUE?
IT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN GOING AND GIVING
PRINTS, AND THEN BEING
SUBREJECTED IN A 6X8
ROOM WHERE THE PERSONNEL
INSTRUCTED HIS PARTICIPANTS
TO REMAIN WAITING IN THE
LOBBY, YOU KNOW, TO BE UNDER
INTERROGATION FOR FOUR
HOURS, THAT -- YOU DON'T SAY
THAT'S CORRECT, YOU ARGUE NO,
IT IS ONLY THREE HOURS INTO
IT WHEN THEY GOT THIS
INFORMATION BACK.
>> BECAUSE, JUDGE, BECAUSE
OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY
TRIAL COUNSEL, BELIEVE ME, IF
I COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT
TO YOU TODAY I WOULD BE.
BUT I AM CONSTRAINED BY --
>> ALSO BECAUSE UNDER THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, HE WAS
THE ONE THAT INITIATED THE
THOUGHT THAT HE WAS GOING TO
TALK TO HIM BECAUSE HE WAS
GOING TO CONVINCE THEM THAT
HE KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT SOME
PEOPLE OVER IN LAKE WALES,
THAT ACTUALLY KNEW HOW THIS
MURDER, I MEAN THAT IS WHAT
IS THE TESTIMONY IN THE
RECORD.
>> I BELIEVE --
>> THAT IS WHAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE DETERMINED.
>> I BELIEVE, THOUGH, WHAT
THE COURT HAS TO LOOK AT AND
I BELIEVE THIS POINT WAS
ADDRESSED IN THE REPLY BRIEF WAS
THAT, ACCORDING TO
DETECTIVE CONNOLLY, INITIAL
CONTACT WITH MR. RIGTERINK IS
HERE I'M CALLING YOU BECAUSE
YOU INSTRUCTED ME TO DO SO.
POLICE ARRIVE,
AGREE TO GET PRINTS WHILE IN
THE MOTHER'S KITCHEN, HE
PROVIDES INFORMATION TO
THEM REGARDING THE ICE
DEALERS FROM LAKE WALES,
ONCE THEY GET TO THE POLICE
STATION PARENTS REMAIN IN THE
LOBBY, MR. RIGTERINK IS TAKEN
BACK INTO THE -- FROM THE
RECORD AND, AGAIN, I --
BELIEVE ME, IF I HAD THE
ABILITY TO CONDUCT
THIS HEARING, CONDUCT IN A
MANNER DIRECTED AT THIS
CUSTODY ELEMENT, I WOULD DO
SO.
BUT I CANNOT.
WE ARE LEFT
WITH TRYING TO INTERPRET
FROM THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THIS ROOM
WAS LOCATED, WE KNOW AND
FROM VIEWING THE VIDEOTAPE
IT IS AN EXTREMELY
SMALL ROOM.
IN FACT IF YOU
HAVE VIEWED THE VIDEO OF THE
CONFESSION, I'M ASSUMING THAT
THE COURT DID GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE EXHIBIT YOU ASKED
FOR IT, GOT IT FRIDAY, I GOT
IT ON MONDAY, THAT THIS ROOM
IS SO SMALL WHEN RIGTERINK
IS SEATED IN ONE CHAIR, THE
DETECTIVE SEATED IN ANOTHER
CHAIR, THEIR KNEES ARE ALMOST
TOUCHING.
THE THIRD DETECTIVE
APPEARS SEATED RIGHT NEXT TO
THE DOOR.
WE CAN'T TELL HOW
SMALL THE CONFINES OF THE ROOM,
WHERE EXACTLY THE DOOR IS.
>> WHAT -- WHAT CAN THIS
COURT USE FROM -- WHAT CAN
THIS COURT TAKE, WHAT KIND OF
THINGS CAN WE DRAW OR ARE WE
ALLOWED TO DRAW IN MAKING A
DETERMINATION?
>> I BELIEVE YOU ARE ALLOWED
TO DRAW, MAKE A DETERMINATION
UNDER RAMIREZ ABOUT THE
PSYSICAL ASPECTS OF THAT ROOM?
CAN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
TONE OF VOICE THAT WAS USED?
>> YES, I BELIEVE YOU CAN.
>> CAN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
LACK OF EMOTION IN THE ROOM?
>> I BELIEVE THIS COURT CAN,
YES.
>> CAN WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE ALLEGED DEFENDANT'S
DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME?
>> YES.
>> SO WE CAN USE IT JUST AS
THOUGH WE ARE SITTING THERE,
BASICALLY AS JURORS MAKING A
DECISION, AS TO IS -- IS
THIS APPEAR SOME KIND OF
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OR IS
THIS THE SITUATION -- WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING --
>> WELL, I'M SAYING THAT THE
COURT SITTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS THE JUDICIAL
BODY REVIEWING CAN
MAKE A CUSTODIAL DETERMINATION --
>> YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS
COURT --
>> YES, UNDER THE
TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT IS
ALLOWED TO LOOK AT THAT
WHOLE PROCESS AND MAKE A
DETERMINATION, AT WHAT POINT --
I'M BOUND TO ARGUE TO YOU
THAT THE POINT OF CUSTODY
WAS AT THE POINT WHEN HE WAS
CONFRONTED WITH THAT
EVIDENCE, AND I BELIEVE THAT
IN THE BRIEF WE -- YOU KNOW, I
DIRECTED THIS COURT'S
ATTENTION TO CASES THAT HAVE
TALKED ABOUT HOW CRITICAL
THAT COMPONENT IS UNDER THE
OR IN REACHING THE ANALYSIS
ABOUT CUSTODY.
>> A GRAND TOTAL OF FOUR
DIFFERENT STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN;
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND WHAT -- WAS THERE AN
OBJECTION TO ADMISSION OF
ALL FOUR OR -- WHAT?
>> THE ONLY OBJECTION -- WAS
DURING THE TRIAL.
WAS THE OBJECTION TO THE
ADMISSION OF THE RECORDED
STATEMENT.
.
>> THAT'S THE STATEMENT THAT
CAME AFTER THE MIRANDA WARNING
;IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT'S STATEMENT THAT CAME
AFTER THE DEFECTIVE MIRANDA
WARNING.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, SO, THERE
WERE THREE STATEMENTS THEN
ADMITTED, WITHOUT OBJECTION?
>> CORRECT.
IN NONE OF THOSE STATEMENTS, I
THINK IT'S ALREADY IMPORTANT TO
DISTINGUISH THE CONTENT OF
THOSE STATEMENTS, BECAUSE,
AGAIN, WOULD PLAY INTO THE
HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS THIS
COURT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE
REQUIRED TO ENGAGE IN, IF YOU
FIND IN MY FAVOR.
>> WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT IN
THE RATHER LIMITED AMOUNT OF
TIME THAT YOU HAVE.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> THAT IS, IF WE'VE GOT THREE
STATEMENTS ALREADY.
>> CORRECTS THE.
>> THE STATE OUTLINES ALL OF
THE OTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST YOUR
CLIENT.
>> CORRECT.
>> ARE WE AT A POINT WHERE A
FORCED STATEMENT REALLY NOW,
THAT SORT OF, THIS IS THE ONE
THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PICTURES
BEING TAKEN, SORT OF THE --
>> CORRECT.
>> THE CAMERA SHOTS.
WHY WOULDN'T, OR COULD WE
CONCLUDE THAT REALLY BY NOW,
WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE AND
THE FLEE OTHER STATEMENTS --
THREE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT
WOULD VIRTUALLY HARMLESS ERROR
TO ADMIT THAT?
>> I THINK THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE THREE OTHER
STATEMENTS IS THAT ONLY IN THE
FOURTH STATEMENT DID
MR.^RIGTERINK GIVE AN ADMISSION
THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO HAD
COMMITTED THESE OFFENSES.
IN HIS FIRST STATEMENT HE
MAINTAINS THE POSITION THAT HE
HAD MAINTAINED FROM THE
INTERVIEWS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
THAT DATED BACK SEVERAL WEEKS.
>> BUT IN THE THIRD STATEMENT
HE HAS HIMSELF THERE --
>> IN THE THIRD STATEMENT --
>> ALL OF THE STUFF, ALL THE
WHATEVER.
>> IN THE THIRD STATEMENT HE
ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PRESENCE AND
HE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION FOR
THE PRESENCE OF THE HAND PRINT,
AND THE PRESENCE OF THE DNA
THAT DID NOT COMMIT HIM OR DID
NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE HAD
BEEN THE PERPETRATOR OF THE
OFFENSES.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY UP
TO THE JURY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY ACCEPTED HIS
EXPLANATION AS CONTAINED IN
THAT STATEMENT FOR THE PRESENCE
OF THAT EVIDENCE.
>> IN HIS FOURTH STATEMENT,
WHICH IS THE ONE THAT YOU ARE
TAKING ISSUE WITH, DOES HE
REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE DID
THIS?
OR IT SEEMS TO ME, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS, THESE
SNAPSHOTS AND --
>> CORRECT.
>> I FIND MYSELF STANDING THERE
BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT
HAPPENED KIND OF THING.
TELL ME WHAT HE SAYS THAT
REALLY IS AN ADMISSION THAT I
AM THE ONE WHO STABBED THESE
TWO PEOPLE?
>> IN THE FOURTH STATEMENT,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU LISTEN TO THE
VIDEO AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING
BY THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH
CONTAINS MANY COMMENTS THAT ARE
FOUND TO BE UNINTELLIGIBLE,
MR.^RIGTERINK ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE TOOK A KNIFE AND A BACKPACK
AND ENTERED THE UNIT NUMBER
FIVE WITH A KNIFE.
>> WHAT?
>> THAT HE ENTERED UNIT FIVE
WITH THE BACKPACK CONTAINING
THE KNIFE.
>> ENTERED THE UNIT.
>> HE ACKNOWLEDGES HAVING
MR.^JARVIS AGAINST THE WALL.
IN THE STATEMENT HE SHOWS HOW
YOU HELD HIM AGAINST THE WALL
USING HIS ARM AGAINST HIS CHEST
AND USING HIS OTHER HAND TO
HOLD THE KNIFE.
HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE ENTERED
THE UNIT ONE.
HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE, AGAIN,
REMEMBERS SEEING MRS.^SOUSA
BACK IN THE WAREHOUSE BLOODIED.
HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE WAS IN
POSSESSION OF THE MURDER WEAPON
AFTER THE INCIDENT.
THAT HE DISPOSED OF IT.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO,
DID HE EVER SAY, YOU KNOW, I
HAD THIS CAN KNIFE IN MY HAND, I
DID THIS?
>> NO, HE DID NOT.
>> I SAW MISS SOUSA, THAT IS
NEVER SAID?
>> MR.^RIGTERINK DID NOT MAKE
THE STATEMENT, I STABBED BOTH
OF THESE TWO YOUNG PEOPLE.
WHAT MR.^RIGTERINK DID WAS
ACKNOWLEDGE THE ENCOUNTERS.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WAS
BLOODY.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED POSSESSION OF
THE MURDER WEAPON.
AND DOES MAKE THE STATEMENT
IN THAT CONFESSION, WHEN HE ON
THURSDAY, THE 12th BEFORE HE
WAS SUPPOSED TO GO ON THE 13th
TO PROVIDE HIS PRINTS --
>> HE TESTIFIED, HE TESTIFIED
IN THIS CASE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> WITH THE STATEMENT NOT
WITHSTANDING ITS INADMISSABILITY
INITIALLY, WOULD IT
HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE TO IMPEACH
HIS TESTIMONY?
>> IF THE COURT HAD GRANTED THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS ORIGINALLY,
YES IT WOULD HAVE.
HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
WE CAN STATE OR THIS COURT CAN
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE LOWER COURT'S RULING ON
ISSUE OF SUPPRESSION BY VIRTUE
OF THE FACT THAT MR.^RIGTERINK
TESTIFIED.
IF HE DID KNOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL
AND HIS FOURTH STATEMENT HAD
NOT BEEN ADMISSIBLE THE JURY
WOULD HAVE HEARD, YES, HE WAS
AT THE SCENE.
YES HE CAME UPON THE BODIES.
THERE WAS AN EXPLANATION THAT
DID NOT INCULPATE HIM BY HIS
OWN WORDS.
>> WOULD YOU SAY IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE FOR US TO CONSIDER
THE AD MISSABILITY FOR
IMPEACHMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HIM
TESTIFYING?
OR EVEN IF WE DID IT, IT STILL
WOULD BE HARMFUL?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S PART OF
THE ANALYSIS THE COURT HAS TO
MAKE BECAUSE THE DECISION FOR
HIM TO TESTIFY OR NOT TESTIFY
WAS OBVIOUSLY MADE IN LIGHT OF
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT
THE STATEMENT WAS COMING IN.
SO OBVIOUSLY MR.^RIGTERINK
WOULD NEED TO TAKE THE STAND TO
EXPLAIN WHY THE JURY SHOULD
DISREGARD THAT FOURTH
STATEMENT.
AND IF IN FACT THIS CASE WERE
TO GO BACK FOR RETRIAL,
OBVIOUSLY IF THE CONFESSION IS
UP PRESSED AT THAT POINT, THE
FOURTH ONE, THERE WOULD NEED TO
BE A DECISION, I'M INTO MY
REBUTTAL TIME, THE COURT, THAT
WOULD BE A DECISION THEN FOR
HIS ATTORNEYS TO MAKE WHETHER
HE WOULD TESTIFY AT A SECOND
TRIAL OR NOT.
THAT DECISION --
>> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN.
>> YES, SIR.
>> CONFIRM FOR ME,
MR.^RIGTERINK WAS 31 YEARS OLD;
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND HE WAS A STUDENT AT A
COLLEGE THERE IN THAT AREA?
>> YES.
HE WAS A STUDENT AT A SMALL
COLLEGE.
I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
THE COURT TO REMEMBER THAT
MR.^RIGTERINK HAD NO PRIOR
CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
>> HOW CLOSE TO GRADUATION WAS
HE?
>> THERE IS SOME PERIPHERAL
EVIDENCE HE WAS A COURSE OR TWO
AWAY.
THERE WAS NOTHING ADMITTED AS
FAR AS TRANSCRIPTS OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT.
JUST HIS STATEMENTS HE WAS
ABOUT A COURSE OR TWO AWAY.
>> HAD HE BEEN GAINFULLY
EMPLOYED, IN OTHER WORDS, MOST
OF HIS ADULT LIFE.
>> THE TESTIMONY WAS HE HAD
BEEN EMPLOYED AND UNEMPLOYED
DIFFERENT TIMES.
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AUGUST HE
HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN RATHER --
HE WORKED FOR A LANDSCAPING COMPANY
DOING MANUAL LABOR AND HE HAD
BEEN FIRED FROM THAT POSITION.

>> THE TESTIMONY WAS THERE SOME
ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THIS BIZARRE
CONTACT?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
THERE WAS NO MENTAL HEALTH
TESTIMONY OTHER THAN THE
STATEMENTS WHERE MR.^RIGTERINK
CLAIMED THAT HE BELIEVED THAT
HE, BECAUSE HE DID THIS, HE
THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING
WRONG WITH HIM BECAUSE HE FELT
THE WAY HE DID AFTERWARDS.
WHICH AGAIN I THINK THE COURT
CAN CONSIDER AGAIN, THAT WAS
EVIDENCE OF AN ADMISSION
ALTHOUGH IT --
>> WAS THERE MENTAL HEALTH
EXAMINATIONS BUT NO MENTAL
HEALTH TESTIMONY?
>> YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS NO
MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION AFTER
THE PENALTY PHASE.
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY MADE A
BELATED REQUEST IN ORDER TO
HAVE THE SENTENCING HEARING
CONTINUED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A
MENTAL EXAMINATION AND PET
SCAN.
AND THAT REQUEST --
>> TALKING ABOUT PART TWO.
>> PARDON ME?
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN
EFFECT WASN'T DONE?
>> IN ALL FAIRNESS JUDGE
ANSTEAD ASKED ME IF IT WAS
DONE, AND NO, IT WASN'T.
THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE TO DO
IT BUT NOTHING, THERE IS NO
MENTAL HEALTH TESTIMONY IN THIS
RECORD SAVE THOSE CONTAINED IN
MR.^RIGTERINK'S STATEMENT.
>> YOU'RE WELL INTO YOUR
REBUTTAL.
IF YOU WANT TO SAVE SOME TIME?
>> I DO, THANK YOU.
>> MR.^BROWNE.
>> GOOD MORNING, SCOTT BOWNE ON
THE BEHALF OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN
CUSTODY AT THE TIME HE MADE HIS
STATEMENT ON OCTOBER 16th.
JUSTICE WELLS AND JUSTICE
LEWIS, YOU RECOGNIZED THAT THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE APPELLANT
CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE
POLICE WAS CLEARLY SUGGESTIVE
OF A CONSENTUAL ENCOUNTER
WITH THE POLICE.
IT WAS THE PARENTS WHO CALLED
THE DETECTIVES.
>> LET'S GET PAST THAT ONE.
I THINK WE'RE DOWN ONCE AT THE
FACILITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, IS
THERE ANYTHING THAT OCCURRED
DURING THAT PROCESS THAT
TRANSFORMED WHAT MAY HAVE
OTHERWISE BEEN, YOU KNOW, A
VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE THERE
CUSTODIAL INTERRACIAL?
THAT IS WHAT REALLY IS THIS
CASE ABOUT.
>> NO, YOUR HONOR, ABSOLUTELY
NOT.
>> TELL US WHY.
>> THE TESTIMONY FROM THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS CAME FROM
DETECTIVE CONNOLLY.
HE SAID THE DEFENDANT WANTED TO
TALK SO HIM.
THEY WENT TO A SUBSTATION.
THE APPELLANT CAME SEPARATELY IN
HIS PARENTS' CAR.
HE IS PRINTED RIGHT ADJACENT
WHERE THE FINGERPRINTS WERE
PROVIDED IS AN INTERVIEW ROOM.
IT WAS SIX BY EIGHT ROOM.
BUT AGAIN IT'S NOT, THEY DID
TAKE HIM TO A BACK ROOM IN THE
STATION.
THEY TOOK HIM TO VERY
CONVENIENT ROOM LOCATED RIGHT
OFF THE FINGERPRINT ROOM.
>> HOW WOULD HAVE A REASONABLE
DEFENDANT THOUGH, HAS BEEN
TELLING THESE STORIES, TO THE,
TO THE POLICE, BUT THAT NOW
THOUGH, IS CONFRONTED THAT WE
HAVE GOT THE GOODS ON YOU.
WE HAVE NOW, WHILE YOU'VE BEEN
HERE, MATCHED YOUR FINGERPRINTS
IN THE BLOOD THAT IS AT THE
SCENE OF THESE HORRIBLE CRIMES.
HOW WOULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON
NOT FEEL THAT THE POLICE NOW
HAVING THE GOODS ON ME, ARE
GOING TO LET ME WALK OUT THAT
DOOR?
THAT IS, THAT DOESN'T THAT,
DEFY RATIONALITY IN THE
OBJECTIVE TEST THAT WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO APPLY AS TO HOW A
REASONABLE PERSON WOULD FEEL
UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES?
AND WE'RE NOT EVEN THROWING IN
HERE ALL OF THE OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT HIS
EVASION, YOU KNOW, UP TO THIS
POINT, AND CLIMBING ON THE ROOF
AND, YOU KNOW ALL THE STUFF
THAT LEADS UP TO, YOU KNOW,
THIS REALLY CHARADE BY HIM IN
TRYING TO AVOID BEING TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY BY THE POLICE?
BUT AT THE POINT WHEN THEY NOW
ESSENTIALLY TELL HIM, WE'VE
GOTCHA.
WE HAVE GOT, YOU KNOW, ON ONE
SIDE OF IT, CERTAINLY NO
REASONABLE POLICE OFFICER WOULD
LET A DEFENDANT THAT THEY HAVE
AT THAT EXTENT OF PROOF ON WALK
OUT THE DOOR.
WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON THAT NOW
KNOWS THAT AND ALSO KNOWS THAT
I'VE BEEN TELLING THE POLICE
THESE FAIRYTALES BUT NOW THEY
KNOW THAT'S TRUE?
I'M HAVING TROUBLE, WHY A
REASONABLE PERSON HOURS INTO
THIS ROOM, LET'S NOT EVEN TALK
ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE
COME TO THAT CONCLUSION BEFORE
BUT NOW THEY TELL HIM THEY HAVE
GOT THE GOODS ON HIM.
THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE NAILED HIM
WITH THESE, THIS POWERFUL,
POWERFUL -- AND THEY TELL HIM
THEY HAVE NAILED HIM.
>> NO THEY DON'T, YOUR HONOR.
YOU'RE INDICATING TELL HIM HE
IS BEING UNTRUTHFUL.
THE TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE
CONNOLLY --
>> THEY DON'T TELL HIM WE HAVE
YOUR BLOODY FINGERPRINTS AT
SCENE OF THE CRIME?
>> THEY DO TELL HIM THAT.
THEY DON'T SAY WE'VE GOT ENOUGH
EVIDENCE ON YOU, YOU'RE GUILTY.
THE TESTIMONY SHOWS WE DON'T
FEEL YOU'RE BEING TRUTHFUL.
WHAT THE DEFENDANT IS TRYING TO
DO --
>> IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THAT
WHERE THEY, HE IS CONFRONTED
WITH THE FACTS, JUST THE
BARE FACT THAT THE POLICE
DETERMINED HIS BLOODY
FINGERPRINT IS FOUND AT SCENE
OF THE CRIME REASONABLE PERSON
IS GOING TO CONCLUDE --
[INAUDIBLE]
SITUATION LIKE THIS, THAT'S,
WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS
THAT THEY KNEW AND HE HAD
ALREADY TOLD THEM, THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.
>> YOUR HONOR, HE IS NEVER TOLD
THAT HE IS NOT FREE TO LEAVE.
>> OH I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> HE IS NEVER TOLD --
>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER.
THE ISSUE HERE IS THE
CONFRONTATION WITH THE EVIDENCE
SUGGESTIVE OF GUILT AND, SEEMS
TO ME -- HOW COULD A PERSON NOT
CONCLUDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO,
THEY'RE GOING TO DETAIN HIM
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH SUCH
DAMNING EVIDENCE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT HERE?
>> FIRST OF ALL, IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED WHEN HE IS
CONFRONTED WITH HIS FINGERPRINT
MATCHING, HE'S IN THE PROCESS
OF MORPHING HIS STORY ALREADY
AND CHANGING HIS STORY.
>> SEE THAT OCCURRED, HE WAS,
THIS CONFRONTATION WITH
EVIDENCE OCCURRED, I WANT YOU
TO GET BACK AND ANSWER HIS
QUESTION OCCURRED AFTER THE
FIRST OR SECOND STATEMENT.
>> AFTER THE SECOND STATEMENT.
>> SO HE GAVE ANOTHER ONE
BEFORE HE CHANGED IT.
SO EVEN THE DEFENDANT IS NOT
ARGUING THAT THE CONFRONTATION
DID IT.
IF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN IT
WOULD HAVE TO ELIMINATE EVEN
THE THIRD STATEMENT?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> OKAY.
>> IN FACT --
>> PLEASE --
>> THE WAS AS COUNSEL CONCEDES,
THE FOURTH TAPED STATEMENT.
BUT THIS COURT --
>> LET ME ASK YOU.
WAS IT NOT ARGUED BELOW THAT
THE CONFRONTATION WITH THE
EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE
FINGERPRINTS A FACTOR THAT THE
TRIAL COURT SHOULD CONSIDER IN
DETERMINING THE WHETHER THIS
WAS STATEMENT SHOULD BE
SUPPRESS?.
>> YOUR HONOR, THAT WAS
CERTAINLY A FACTOR.
AS WELL IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
UNDER RAMIREZ.
THE STATE ISN'T DISREGARDING
THAT IN ITS ANALYSIS.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS
COURT IN PREVIOUS CASES, WE
WOULD INVITE THIS COURT'S
ATTENTION TO DAVIS v. STATE AND
FITZPATRICK.
MERELY BECAUSE THEY'RE
CONFRONTING THE DEFENDANT WITH
EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT, EVEN
POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT,
DOES NOT RENDER AN INDIVIDUAL
UNDER ARREST OR THE EQUIVALENT
OF AN ARREST WHILE HE IS OR HE
IS IN CUSTODY.
>> JUSTICE CANADY, WOULD THE
STATE AGREE AFTER THOSE, THAT
BLOODY FINGERPRINTS CAME BACK
AND MATCHED HIS WITH EVERYTHING
ELSE THEY KNEW THEY HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM IF
THEY DECIDED TO DO THAT?
>> WHAT THE DETECTIVE TESTIFIED
TO HE THOUGHT HE HAD PROBABLE
CAUSE BUT HE WANTED TO TALK TO
A ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WAS.
>> HE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE, WE'LL
SEE WHAT WE GET OUT OF THE
DEFENDANT THEN WE'LL GIVE HIM
MIRANDA RIGHTS?
>> HE DIDN'T SAY HE KNEW HE HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE?
>> I AM NOT ASKING WHETHER
YOUR DETECTIVE KNEW.
WASN'T THERE AT THAT POINT
PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM?
>> THERE PROBABLY WAS, YOUR
HONOR, AT THAT POINT.
>> I WANT TO ASK TO COMMENT ON,
THERE IS CASE OUT OF THE SECOND
DISTRICT CALLED PITTS, 936
SOUTHERN 2ND.
AND THEY TALK ABOUT, THIS IS
THE THIRD, THE RAMIREZ FACTORS.
THE FACT THAT A SUSPECT IS
CONFRONTED WITH SOME
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE DOES NOT
ALONE CAUSE THE SUSPECT TO BE
IN CUSTODY.
BUT IT SAYS IF A REASONABLE
PERSON IN THE SUSPECT'S
POSITION WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT
POLICE HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO
ARREST THE SUSPECT FOR A
SERIOUS CRIME SUCH AS
MURDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE
MILITATES STRONGLY TOWARDS THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE SUSPECT
IS IN CUSTODY.
IF THE SUSPECT IS ADVISED IS
NOT UNDER ARREST AND FREE TO
LIVE THE SIGNIFICANCE WOULD BE
DIMINISHED.
HERE HE WASN'T ADVISED AT ANY
POINT HE WAS FREE TO LEAVE.
DO YOU THINK PITTS IS INCORRECT
IN TERMS OF A STATEMENT AND A
LAW AS FAR AS
SOMEBODY IS CONFRONTED WITH
POWERFUL INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE
AND THEY'RE NOW IN A SIX BY
INTERROGATION ROOM AND BEEN
THERE THREE HOURS THAT A
REASONABLE PERSON WOULD THINK
THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE?
>> YOUR HONOR, IF YOU LOOK AT
PITTS, THAT IS SIMPLY A FACTOR
UNDER RAMIREZ.
LOOK AT THIS FACTOR THIS COURT
HAS HELD IS CRITICAL TO ITS
DECISIONS IN FITZPATRICK AND
DAVIS.
THE DEFENDANT ARRIVED AT THE
STATION SEPARATELY.
HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.
HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY.
HE VOLUNTEERED THAT HE HAD
INFORMATION HE WANTED TO
PROVIDE TO THE POLICE.
THEN HE PROVIDES TO TELL A
NUMBER OF TALES TO THE POLICE.
EACH TIME HE IS MORPHING IT.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
PRIOR TO THE FINAL STATEMENT
WHEN HE SAYS HE IS GOING TO
TELL THE TRUTH THE POLICE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT, THE DETECTIVE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HIS STORY WAS
GOING TO BE.
ALL THEY KNEW IT WITH BE
ANOTHER EXCULPATORY STORY TO
EXPLAIN AWAY THE EVIDENCE.
THE DEFENDANT --
>> A REASONABLE DEFENDANT
WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT THAT,
WOULD HE?
>> I THINK THIS DEFENDANT
THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO TALK
HIS WAY OUT OF IT.
>> THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO USE
A REASONABLE PERSON IN HIS
SHOES WOULD BELIEVE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> HAVING TOLD THEM THESE
VARIOUS TALES AND THEN BEING
CONFRONTED, HE OBVIOUSLY HAD
BEEN LYING AT SOME POINT.
HE IS GOING TO KNOW THAT THEY
FIGURED THAT OUT.
THEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS
EVIDENCE, COULD A REASONABLE
PERSON CONCLUDE THAT HE WOULD
BE FREE TO GO, THAT'S THE
QUESTION?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THERE WAS
ABSOLUTELY NO TESTIMONY ON THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS FROM THE
DEFENDANT REGARDING WHETHER OR
NOT HE FELT HE WAS FREE TO
LEAVE OR NOT.
JUSTICE LEWIS, YOU LOOKED AT
THAT INTERVIEW TAPE.
THE DEFENDANT, HIS BODY
LANGUAGE.
HE WAS LEANING TOWARD THE
DEFENDANT.
THERE WAS TWO DETECTIVES TAKING
NOTES.
THERE WAS NO CONFRONTATION
WHATSOEVER.
OKAY, WHAT'S YOUR STORY?
WHAT HAPPENED?
WHEN IT HAPPENED, WHAT
HAPPENED?
REMEMBER THE DEFENDANT KNEW ALL
THE WHILE HIS PARENTS WERE
WAITING FOR HIM AT THE STATION.
SO, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE
FACTORS UNDER RAMIREZ, YES, HE
WAS CONFRONTED WITH EVIDENCE OF
HIS GUILT BUT THAT IS JUST ONE
OF THE FACTORS UNDER RAMIREZ.
WE SUBMIT OF THE FOUR FACTORS,
THE REMAINING FACTORS GENERALLY
TEND TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL
COURT'S CONCLUSION, WHICH
AGAIN, COMES TO THIS COURT
CLOTHED WITH A PRESUMPTION OF
CORRECTNESS THAT THE STATEMENT
WAS GIVEN VOLUNTARILY AND HE
WAS NOT IN CUSTODY.
>> OKAY.
BUT ASSUMING THAT THIS COURT
SHOULD DECIDE AT SOME POINT HE
WAS IN CUSTODY, WHAT, WHAT THEN
WAS THE POLICE'S RESPONSIBILITY
AT THAT POINT?
>> I THINK THEY SATISFIED THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY.
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT REACH
THE ADEQUACY OF THE RIGHTS
WAIVER BELOW BECAUSE THE COURT
FOUND THAT --
>> BUT THE OBLIGATION WAS TO
READ HIM HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS?
>> IF HE WAS IN CUSTODY.
AGAIN THE STATE'S CONTESTING
THAT.
IF WE TWO TO THE SECOND PART --
>> WAIT A MINUTE.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO FERRET
THROUGH HERE IS THAT WE'VE GOT
SORT OF CONVOLUTED SITUATION.
IN THAT BELOW THE DEFENDANT
DOESN'T OBJECT TO, DIDN'T
OBJECT AND IS IS NOT BEING
RAISED HERE THAT THE STATEMENTS
THAT WERE GIVEN UP TO A CERTAIN
POINT.
AND THEN, FROM THAT POINT, THEN
YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION IN WHICH
THERE IS A CONTEST AND THEN,
THERE IS A POINT AFTER WHICH
THERE WAS A MIRANDA RIGHT
GIVEN.
>> CORRECT.
>> NOW, SO WHAT OCCURRED
BETWEEN THE POINT AT WHICH HE
WAS TOLD ABOUT THE RESULTS OF
THE FINGERPRINT TEST AND THE
POINT THAT HE GAVE THE MIRANDA
RIGHTS?
>> HE WAS TOLD ABOUT THE
FINGERPRINT TEST BETWEEN THE
SECOND AND THIRD STORIES.
THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.
AND THE THIRD STORY WAS HIM TRY
TO INNOCENTLY EXPLAIN --
REMEMBER HE SAID AT FIRST I
WASN'T THERE AT ALL.
I HAVE AN ALIBI.
>> WAS THAT AT POINT WHICH
BELOW THIS OBJECTION, MOTION TO
SUPPRESS WAS DIRECT?.
>> NO.
ACTUALLY THE OBJECTION TO AD
MISSABILITY OF ANY STATEMENTS
WAS ACTUALLY ONLY THE TAPED
STATEMENT.
THE DEFENDANT NEVER ARGUED
BELOW SIMPLY CONFRONTING HIM
WITH THE BLOODY FINGERPRINT
RENDERED IT CUSTODIAL.
HE SAID SOMETIME AFTER THAT
POINT WHEN THEY CONTINUED TO
QUESTION HIM IT BECAME
CUSTODIAL.
THEN THE TAPE THE STATEMENT
ITSELF IS THE ONLY STATEMENT
THEY SOUGHT TO --
>> THEY ONLY OBJECTED TO THE
FOURTH STATEMENT; IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WAS THAT STATEMENT GIVEN
AFTER THE MIRANDA WARNING?
>> YES, CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> NOW ALL OF THIS ISSUE MAY
BE, THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, WHEN HE IS IN CUSTODY,
IF, THEN I'M MISSING SOMETHING
BECAUSE, IF THE MIRANDA
WARNINGS WERE GIVEN AND IF THEY
WERE PROPER THEN THIS TAPED
STATEMENT COMES IN.
BUT I THOUGHT THERE HAD TO BE
UNLESS WE JUST SPENT THE LAST
50 MINUTES ON A NON-ISSUE, THAT
THERE WAS SOME TIME, AS JUSTICE
WELLS WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
BETWEEN WHEN THEY CONFRONT HIM
WITH EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND
WHETHER THEY GIVE THE MIRANDA
WARNINGS THAT SOME PRETTY
DAMAGING STUFF CAME OUT.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> ARE YOU SAYING --
>> ALREADY DAMAGING STUFF CAME
OUT.
>> BUT THEY'RE NOT SEEKING TO
SUPPRESS THAT?
>> NOT SEEKING TO SUPPRESS.
AS I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS WHAT I
WANTED TO CONFIRM HERE, THAT
THE, WHEN THEY TURNED THE TAPE
ON, IS WHEN THE OBJECTION,
THAT, FROM THAT POINT
FORWARD --
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT OR
SHORTLY THEREAFTER THAT THE
MIRANDA RIGHTS WERE READ?
>> THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT
APPEARS ON THE TAPE IS HE -- I
WANT TO MAKE SURE --
>> WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST START
WITH THAT ONE?
>> HE WILL WITH THE TRIAL COURT
BELOW INDICATED THAT, THAT
AGAIN ONLY THE ONLY STATEMENTS
THAT WERE AT ISSUE WAS THE
FINAL TAPED STATEMENT.
IF THIS COURT DECIDES --
>> WHY WASN'T THERE JUST A
FOCUS ON MIRANDA?
ONCE THERE IS MIRANDA WARNINGS,
YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE DEFECTIVE
WOULDN'T MATTER IF HE IS NOT IN
CUSTODY.
>> EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR.
AT THAT TIME THERE WAS CASE LAW
OUT THE FOURTH DISTRICT
INDICATING THAT THE RIGHTS
FORM, INDICATING, THAT IS PART
OF STATE'S ARGUMENT HERE.
IF THE MIRANDA FORM IS PROPER,
THE STATE CONTENDS IT IS, AND
THIS COURT ALREADY HEARD
ARGUMENT IN THE CERTIFIED
QUESTION, THE STATE INVITES
THIS COURT'S ATTENTION TO THE
WELL-REASONED DECISION OUT OF
THE SECOND DISTRICT AND THE
MORE RECENT DECISION OUT OF THE
FIFTH DISTRICT IN MODESTI.
>> IF THE COURT, LET'S SAY,
THAT THE DECISION HERE, REALLY
COMES DOWN TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THE MIRANDA.
IF THE MIRANDA FORM WAS, IS
HELD NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE, IT
ONLY EFFECTS THAT PORTION OF
THE STATEMENT THAT IS ON THE
TAPE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AND THE LAST STATEMENT IS IN
FACT ARGUABLY THE MOST DAMAGING
WHERE THE DEFENDANT ADMITS,
ALTHOUGH THE STATE SUBMITS IS
TRYING TO, HE IS ONLY GIVING
SNAPSHOTS.
LOOKS LIKE HE IS TRYING TO SET
UP A MENTAL HEALTH DEFENSE.
LIKE I HAVE A FEW POLAROIDS.
THAT ARGUABLY WAS THE MOST
INCRIMINATING.
>> WAS THERE ARGUMENT MADE, TO
JUDGE ROBERTS THAT HEARD THIS.
>> I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR.
>> WAS ARGUMENT MADE TO HER
ABOUT THE FORM OF THE MIRANDA
RIGHTS?
>> THERE WAS ARGUMENT AND THERE
WAS CASE LAW CITED AND AGAIN,
THIS WAS BEFORE MAB --
>> CASE OUT OF THE FOURTH
DISTRICT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT WAS THE CASE LAW THAT WAS
CITED BELOW.
AGAIN THIS MIRANDA RIGHTS FORM
FOR THIS COLLEGE-EDUCATED
INDIVIDUAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY
LIMIT OR SEEK TO LIMIT HIS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
HE WAS INFORMED VERY CLEARLY
BOTH ORALLY AND IN WRITING THAT
HE HAD THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
PRIOR TO QUESTIONING IN THIS
CASE.
>> BUT NOT DURING -- COMES DOWN
TO THE QUESTION OF, DO YOU HAVE
TO TELL THEM THAT THEY'RE
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL DURING THE
UNINTERROGATION?
>> YOUR HONOR --.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN
TO.
TWO WORDS.
>> THERE HAS BEEN A
DEVELOPMENTS IN CASE LAW NOW
THAT SUGGESTS, AND CLEARLY, THE
VIEW OF THE LAW, BETTER VIEW OF
THE LAW STATE'S POSITION IS YOU
DON'T TAKE A HYPERTECHNICAL
VIEW OF MIRANDA.
THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER IN THIS
CASE.
>> CAN WE GO TO THE ISSUE,
LET'S ASSUME, STATE v. POWELL
HAS BEEN ARGUED.
IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO REARGUE YOU
IT BUT YOU ONLY HAVE LIMITED
TIME.
LET'S ASSUME, YOU SAID THAT
FOURTH STATEMENT WAS THE MOST
INCRIMINATING.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> ARE YOU MAKING AN ARGUMENT
EVEN IF IT'S HARMLESS BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
WE MADE THE ARGUMENT IN THE
BRIEF.
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR IN THE CASE
THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
APPELLANT WAS ABSOLUTELY
OVERWHELMING.
>> YOU KNOW OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE IS THE TEST OF
HARMLESS ERROR?
>> THAT IS NOT THE TEST.
IT'S DIGUILIO.
WE LOOK AT STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE
IN TOTALITY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER IT'S HARMLESS BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
IN THIS CASE --
>> WOULDN'T YOU SAY, THIS IS MY
PROBLEM, AGAIN I CERTAINLY, YOU
KNOW, WE WOULD RATHER UPHOLD
CONVICTIONS THAN REVERSE THEM,
HOW DO WE, ONCE THE DEFENDANT
TOOK THE STAND, YOU KNOW, ALL
OF THIS STUFF IS COMING IN, BUT
I'M STRUGGLING AND MAYBE WE
HAVE DEALT WITH IT, DO WE TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE LOOK AT IT
THAT THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED,
OR DO WE ASSUME HE ONLY
TESTIFIED BECAUSE THE FOURTH
STATEMENT CAME IN?
AND HOW DO YOU EVALUATE THAT
ISSUE?
>> WELL, I THINK THE DEFENDANT,
GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, WAS GOING
TO TAKE THE STAND.
AND WE KNOW THAT ONCE HE TAKES
THE STAND, HARRIS v. NEW YORK,
THE STATE COULD HAVE USED HIS
FOURTH STATEMENT TO IMPEACH
HIM.
>> LET'S --
>> KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT
EVIDENCE.
>> WOULD YOU GO BACK TO AND
RESPOND TO JUSTICE PARIENTE,
YOU SAID YEAH HE IS GOING TO
TESTIFY ANYWAY.
WHY?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, HIS
BLOODY FINGERPRINT IS AT THE
SCENE.
WE HAVE HIS DNA UNDER THE
FINGERNAIL OF VICTIM JARVIS.
WE HAVE JARVIS'S BLOOD ON HIS
TRUCK.
WE HAVE --
>> WAS THAT CONCLUSIVELY
DEMONSTRATED THAT WAS HIS DNA
UNDER THE FINGERNAIL.
>> TO ONE, TO LOKAI.
ONE IN 320,000, YOUR HONOR.
I WOULD SUBMIT IT'S PRETTY GOOD
ODDS IT WAS HIS DNA.
WE HAVE THE DNA IN THE
TRUCK TO ONE
EVERYONE IN THE WORLD AND THEN
SOME.
SO HE IS BLOODY.
HE IS IN THE TRUCK.
WE HAVE HIM MAKING THE PHONE
CALL TO THE DEFENDANT
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE
MURDERS.
WE HAVE TWO EYEWITNESSES WHO
IDENTIFY, ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO
RESEMBLES, ALMOST EXACTLY --
>> NOW YOU'RE GIVING ALL THE
EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS HIS
GUILT.
I THINK THAT THE QUESTION, I
STILL HAD IS, WE DON'T KNOW HE
WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED.
WE HAVE DOZENS OF MURDER CASES
WHERE THERE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL
AND DIRECT EVIDENCE AND THE
DEFENDANT EXERCISES HIS OR HER
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SAY THEY
HAVE TO GET ON THE STAND TO
EXPLAIN IT?
DEFENSE COUNSEL KNOWS OFTEN
TIMES, NOPE, WE DON'T WANT YOU
BECAUSE YOU WILL JUST MAKE IT
WORSE FOR YOURSELF, YOU KNOW,
THIS WAS, MAYBE IT WAS A
SLAM-DUNK BUT THE JURY FOUND
7-5 ON PENALTY PHASE, PRETTY
CLOSE FOR NO MENTAL HEALTH
MITIGATION.
GOING BACK ISSUE OF LET'S
ASSUME THAT HE SAID, HOW,
AGAIN, LET'S DO HARMLESS ERROR
ANALYSIS.
LET'S ASSUME HE DOESN'T TAKE
THE STAND.
SO THE FORTH STATEMENT, OUT HOW
DOES THE FOURTH STATEMENT
EITHER EFFECT OR NOT EFFECT NO
REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT IT
COULD HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN THE
JURY'S DELIBERATION?
>> YOUR HONOR, EVEN IF, AND I
THINK PROBABLY USE OF POOR
CHOICE OF WORDS.
IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER OR
NOT HE TESTIFIED OR NOT.
GIVEN THESE FACTS.
AGAIN I'VE BEEN HERE ON CASES
THAT DON'T HAVE OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE.
YOU HAVE A BLOODY FINGERPRINT.
>> WANT TO TELL US WHICH ONES
THOSE WERE?
>> NO YOUR HONOR.
THIS COURT KNOWS.
>> GO BACK, WHAT IS THE TEST TO
DETERMINE?
WHAT DOES THE COURT LOOK TO BE
ABLE TO SAY THAT?
THIS IS PRETTY HEAVY STATEMENT,
THAT FOURTH STATEMENT, I MEAN
THAT'S, IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT
STATEMENT.
IT'S NOT JUST, WELL, I WAS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE FOURTH STATEMENT
ACTUALLY IS KIND OF EXCULPATORY
IN A WAY BECAUSE HE IS SAYING,
WELL, I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER.
I'VE BEEN VIOLENT IN THE PAST
AND BLACKED OUT.
>> LET'S ASSUME WE THINK THAT
FOURTH STATEMENT IS PRETTY
POWERFUL.
WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE,
GOING BACK TO JUDGE PARIENTE'S
QUESTION.
>> WHETHER IT'S HARMLESS.
>> WE KNOW WHETHER IT'S
HARMLESS OR NOT.
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION
DEPENDS WHETHER HE TESTIFIES OR
NOT BECAUSE THAT DETERMINES
WHETHER ALL THOSE OTHER
STATEMENTS COME IN.
WHAT IS THE TEST THAT A COURT
USES AS YOU READ THE LAW, TO
DETERMINE, WELL, THIS WAS GOING
TO COME IN BECAUSE HE WAS GOING
TO TESTIFY?
WHAT IS THE TEST WE WOULD
APPLY?
>> AGAIN I, THE TEST IS, UNDER
EITHER EITHER SCENARIO, WHETHER
OR NOT HE TESTIFIES OR NOT,
LET'S ASSUME THIS FOURTH
STATEMENT NEVER COMES IN, IT'S
STILL HARMLESS UPPED THESE
FACTS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T
MATTER HE COULD TESTIFY AND WE
COULD INTRODUCE THAT THAT IS
ANOTHER FACTOR YOU MAY LOOK AT
UNDER HARMLESS ERROR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL
STRENGTH OF THIS CASE, AGAIN
TWO EYEWITNESSES, THE TIMELINE
FITS PERFECTLY, SOMEONE
RESEMBLING EXACTLY THE
DEFENDANT, 6-FOOT, TO 6'3", 200
POUNDS, WHITE MALE WITH
SHOULDER-LENGTH BROWN OR DARK
HAIR.
THE TIMELINE, THE BLOOD
EVERYWHERE, THERE IS REALLY NOT
AN INNOCENT EXPLANATION YOU CAN
COME UP WITH IN THIS CASE.
AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE WAS
OVERWHELMING.
I THINK THAT FACTORS INTO THE
DIGUILIO ANALYSIS.
>> YOU'RE SAYING BY THE TIME
THE THIRD STATEMENT EVEN
ADMITTED HIS PRESENCE.
>> HE WAS LYING.
>> HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
VICTIMS AND THE BLOOD AND
EVERYTHING?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR, THE JURY
WOULD ALSO HAVE THE PRIOR
EVASIVENESS WITH THE POLICE,
NOT WANTING TO GIVE
FINGERPRINT.
LYING, I WAS WATCHING VIDEOS
WITH MY GIRLFRIEND.
OH, THAT WASN'T IT.
AND THEN, WELL I MIGHT HAVE
BEEN THERE BEFORE THE MURDERS
OCCURRED BUT I LEFT BEFORE
ANYTHING HAPPENED.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.
THEN FINALLY I CAME IN UPON THE
SCENE AFTERWARD AND I CHECKED
FEMALE VICTIM FOR A PULSE.
AGAIN THAT CONTRADICTS THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE
MR.^JARVIS'S BLOOD WAS ALL OVER
HIS FATHER'S TRUCK.
>> WOULD YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION
TOO ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WERE ANY REQUESTS FOR MENTAL
EXAMINATIONS OR ANY MENTAL
EXAMINATIONS, OR ANY ATTEMPT TO
EXPLAIN EXPLAIN THIS HORRENDOUS
EPISODE?
>> YOUR HONOR, NO FUNDS WERE
REQUESTED BY THE DEFENSE EARLY
ON.
AND I BRIEF A CONFIDENTIAL
MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT WAS, AGAIN
I KNOW THIS, THERE WAS THERE
WITH REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF
SERVICES FOR MENTAL HEALTH
EXPERT EARLY ON IN THE CASE.
THE DEFENDANT AT SENTENCING,
THE DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID, I
WANT TO HAVE HIM EXAMINED NOW
BECAUSE HE IS NOT SHOWING
ENOUGH EMOTION.
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED AT THAT
POINT.
>> AS FAR AS THE --
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT I KNOW
FOR SURE HE WAS EXAMINED.
I DO BELIEVE THERE WAS A
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A
MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT.
>> THERE WAS SOME PAYMENT MADE?
>> I BELIEVE SOME I HAVE, I
HAVE REVIEWED SOMETHING IN THE
RECORD AND MISS NORGARD CAN
PROBABLY CLARIFY THIS, HE MADE
A REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR
MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT EARLY ON.
AND THAT THAT'S IT.
>> THAT'S IT AS FAR AS THE
RECORD.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO
THE HARMLESS ERROR ISSUE.
THE THREE PRIOR STATEMENTS WERE
JUST, THEY WEREN'T RECORDED?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THE DETECTIVE HOW DID THESE
COME INTO EVIDENCE.
THROUGH DETECTIVE CONNOLLY?
>> DETECTIVE SAY, HE SAID THIS.
>> THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH
EVERYTHING YOU SAID, IF THE
FOURTH STATEMENT WAS LIKE THE
FIRST THREE, DELAYED BY THE
POLICE OFFICERS, DETECTIVE, THE
ONE THING, AND I HAVE NOT YET,
REVIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE
STATEMENT BUT, DID THE STATE
INTRODUCE THAT VIDEOTAPE
CONFESSION IN ITS CASE IN
CHIEF?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> SO IT SEEMS TO ME AS A
JUROR, THERE IS BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE GUY CLOSE TO THE
CRIME, AND AGAIN, I HAVE TO
LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID
BUT IN PERSON, BASICALLY
CONFESSING TO THE CRIME AND THE
DETECTIVE RELATING WHAT ISN'T
ON TAPE.
YOU AT LEAST, I'M NOT ASKING
YOU TO AGREE THAT IT IS HARMFUL
ERROR, YOU AGREE
QUALITATIVELILY IT'S A BIG
DIFFERENCE IN HOW A JURY WILL
SEE THAT THAT PERSON IS ON
TAPE, CONFESSING TO THE CRIME,
VERSUS A DETECTIVE RELATING
STORIES THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS
TOLD?
>> WELL, THERE WAS NO -- I AGREE
WITH YOU.
IT'S PROBABLY MORE EFFECTIVE AS
A PROSECUTOR TO SEE THE
DEFENDANT ON TAPE.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO
CONTRADICTION BY THE DEFENSE AT
ALL TO ANY OF THE PRELIMINARY
STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE TO THE
POLICE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT'S
UNCONTESTED.
THAT HE HAD AN ALIBI.
>> THE ONES THAT EARLIER THEN,
ON THIS DATE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
ACTUALLY, REMEMBER, HE SPOKE
WITH THE POLICE.
THIS GOES BACK TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSION
ITSELF.
HE HAD AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE
POLICE ON SEPTEMBER 25th WHERE
HE SAID, LOOK, I WAS WITH MY
GIRLFRIEND.
I HAD FOOD POISONING.
BASICALLY TELLING HIM AN ALIBI.
THE POLICE LET HIM GO.
>> HE TESTIFIEDED HE AGREED HE
SAID ALL THOSE THINGS.
HE SAID HE WAS DOING IT UNDER
DURESS BECAUSE SOMEBODY WAS OUT
TO GET HIM, IS THAT --
>> YES, YOUR HONOR, IN A
NUTSHELL HIS TESTIMONY.
>> BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
THREE STATEMENTS OR ALL FOUR
STATEMENTS?
WAS THE THING WITH THE FOURTH
STATEMENT WAS MADE BECAUSE, WAS
IT MULLINS?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> HAD THREATENED HIM AND ALL
OF THIS?
ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS HE IS
SAYING WERE MADE BECAUSE OF
THAT?
>> HE IS EXPLAINING AWAY ALL OF
THESE DIFFERENT STATEMENTS
BECAUSE MULLINS, AGAIN HE
DIDN'T MENTION THIS DURING ANY
OF THOSE STATEMENTS, THAT HE
WAS AFRAID OF MULLINS WHO
WAS --
>> IN FACT AT SOME POINT
MENTIONED MULLINS'S NAME AS
SOMEONE WHO WAS A FRIEND OF THE
VICTIMS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AGAIN, THE HOLE THROUGH THE
DEFENDANT'S CASE, YOU COULD
DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH THEM.
IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT THIS
EVIDENCE IN TOTALITY, AND
AGAIN, THE STATE ADMITS IT
WAS VOLUNTARY ENCOUNTER.
IT MAINTAINS THAT.
EVEN IF YOU TAKE THAT FOURTH
STATEMENT AWAY, IT'S LARGELY,
HE IS TRYING TO SET UP, I DON'T
REMEMBER?
IT ACTUALLY, IT WAS DAMAGING
JUSTICE PARIENTE, BUT IT WASN'T
THE CRUX OF THE STATE'S CASE BY
FAR.
IT WAS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
IT WAS THE PEOPLE, THE PHONE
CALL.
THE PEOPLE WHO OBSERVED AN
INDIVIDUAL RESEMBLING THE
APPELLANT THERE WHEN IT
HAPPENED.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE
TIMELINE FOR THE DEFENDANT'S
LATER TESTIMONY.
>> HOW STRONG WAS THE TESTIMONY
OF THE OTHER WOMAN WHO WAS IN
THE UNIT WHERE THE TWO VICTIMS
ACTUALLY DIED?
>> WELL, SHE DID NOT GET A
GREAT LOOK.
HIS GENERAL PHYSICAL FEATURES
THE STATE SUBMITS, RESEMBLE HE
WORE A LIGHT SHIRT, DARK
SHORTS, BETWEEN 6-FOOT AND 6'3"
AND 200 POUNDS, GENERALLY
RESEMBLING THE DEFENDANT.
REMEMBER, THE DEFENDANT TWO
DAYS AFTER THIS MURDER WENT GOT
HIS HAIRCUT, TWO WEEKS AFTER A
PREVIOUS HAIRCUT.
AGAIN I'M NOT MENTIONING ALL
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE
INTRODUCED.
IT WAS TRULY OVERWHELMING, THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
>> DID HIS GIRLFRIEND TESTIFY
AT ALL DURING THIS TRIAL?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> HE AT SOME POINT HE WAS WITH
THE GIRL FRIEND.
THAT HE WAS SICK AND THAT SHE
CAME OVER TO CHECK ON HIM AND
ALL OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
DID SHE CORROBORATE ANY OF THAT
INFORMATION?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
IN FACT I DO BELIEVE THE STATE
CALLED, IT WAS EITHER THE
GIRLFRIEND OR THE WIFE, TO
ESTABLISH THAT HE HAD THE
10-INCH LONG HUNTING KNIFE.
THE DEFENDANT'S STORY WAS
ENTIRELY UNCORROBORATED IN THIS
CASE.
AND AGAIN, ADMISSION OF THAT
STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR
BUT THE MIRANDA WARNINGS THAT
WERE GIVEN IN THE STATE'S VIEW,
PROPER.
>> WHAT WOULD THE TRIAL COURT
SAY ABOUT THE MIRANDA WARNING?
SHE DID NOT RULE ON IT,
CORRECT?
>> THE JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON
THAT.
CHIEF JUSTICE, THERE WAS NO
MENTION OF THAT IN THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER.
I BELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT JUST
ASSUMED WITHOUT DECIDING BASED
ON THE FOURTH DISTRICT CASE,
THAT THE RIGHTS WARNING WAS
DEFECT T YOU DON'T REACH THAT
DECISION UNLESS YOU FIND THAT
THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY
AND THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN
CUSTODY.
>> THE CALL TO THE PROSECUTOR
TO, CONFIRM PROBABLE CAUSE OR
WHATEVER CAME AFTER THE FOURTH
STATEMENT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT
TAPE, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT
THE KIND OF ENCOUNTER THIS WAS.
THE DEFENDANT IS LEANING
FORWARD.
JUSTICE LEWIS, IF YOU LOOK AT
THAT I'VE SEEN MANY OF THESE
CONFESSIONS AS WELL, THERE IS
NO INTIMIDATION.
NO HINT OF THE DETECTIVES
PUTTING WORDS IN THE
DEFENDANT'S MOUTH.
HE WAS THERE BECAUSE HE WAS
TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT AWAY IN A
MANNER FAVORABLE TO HIMSELF.
HE REALIZED HE WAS IN A LOT OF
TROUBLE.
HE WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT
AWAY.
ULTIMATELY, RELYING OR SETTING
UP, I BELIEVE A MENTAL HEALTH
DEFENSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT HIS FINAL
CONFESSION, HE IS REALLY TRYING
TO PROVIDE AN OUT FOR HIM LATER
ON.
IT WAS HIM, HE REALIZED, OKAY,
THEY'RE NOT BUYING THIS STORY.
THEY WILL BUY THIS ONE.
AGAIN, HE NEVER ASKED TO LEAVE.
THE DOOR WAS NEVER LOCKED TO
THE INTERROGATION ROOM.
THE PARENTS REMAINED THERE
ENTIRE TIME WAITING IN THE
LOBBY.
HE KNEW THAT THE PARENTS WERE
WAITING FOR HIM.
SO UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, THE
STATE SUBMITS HE WAS NOT IN
CUSTODY.
AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU
AFFIRM THE CONVICTIONS AND
SENTENCES IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MISS NORGARD, I BELIEVE YOU
HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES.
>> JUST IF YOU LET ME HAVE A
FEW EXTRA.
JUSTICE PARIENTE I THINK YOU'RE
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT PITTS IS
VERY IMPORTANT CASE FOR THIS
COURT TO CONSIDER.
JUSTICE KENNEDY AUTHORED THAT
OPINION.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS BRILLIANT
OPINION.
I DIDN'T REALIZE HE AUTHORED
IT.
>> YES HE DID.
>> SOUNDED EVEN BETTER THIS
MORNING.
>> IN MY CASE AS WELL.
WE ARGUED THE THAT CASE IN THE
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL.
I THINK AGAIN WHAT IS IMPORTANT
TO REMEMBER IS THAT THIS WHOLE
IDEA OF CUSTODY AND WHEN IT
BEGINS IS CLEARLY A
DETERMINATIVE FACTOR BASED ON
THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
AS JUSTICE CANADY POINTED OUT,
THAT CONFRONTATION WITH THAT
TYPE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE,
HOW COULD ANYBODY, HOW COULD
YOU, HOW COULD I THINK THAT
LEAVING A BLOODY PRINT --
>> IF HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH
THE EVIDENCE, PRIOR TO THE
THIRD STATEMENT, THEN REALLY
THE THIRD STATEMENT IS, BEFORE
THE THIRD STATEMENT IS WHERE
THE MIRANDA WARNING SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GIVEN?
>> YOUR HONOR, AS AN OFFICER OF
THE COURT, I AM BOUND TO GO
WITH WHAT THE LOWER COURT SAID
BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU.
IN MY OPINION --
>> BUT THAT BOTHERS ME TO AN
EXTENT HERE.
WE'VE SPENT ALL MORNING ARGUING
ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT
OBJECTED TO BELOW.
>> WELL --
>> THAT JUST SERVES TO CONFUSE
THIS ISSUE.
DON'T YOU AGREE THAT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS ONLY FROM THE
TIME THAT THE, THAT THE TAPE
WAS TURNED ON?
>> YES.
>> AND THE MIRANDA RIGHT WAS
GIVEN?
>> YES.
>> SO WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THAT
HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO.
AND, WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO
SUPPRESS THAT JUST ON THE BASIS
OF BEING FUNDAMENTAL ERROR.
>> NO, NO.
BUT WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS THAT,
AT THE POINT IN TIME HE IS
CONFRONTED WITH THE BLOODY HAND
PRINT, THE COURT ASKED WHAT
HAPPENED?
I CAN DELL WHAT YOU HAPPENED.
HE GAVE THE STATEMENT WHERE HE
ADMITTED TO PRESENCE AND HE
OFFERED AN EXPLANATION THAT DID
NOT INCULCATE HIM IN THE
CRIMES.
HE WAS THEN TOLD.
YOU ARE LYING.
THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH.
WE WANT THE WHOLE STORY.
YOU ARE LYING.
AT THAT POINT IN TIME HE SAID,
FINE, I WILL TELL YOU THE WHOLE
STORY.
AND THEN HE IS READ MIRANDA.
AND GIVEN --
>> MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE PROPER,
DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DECIDE IN
THE OTHER CASE, THEN THERE IS
NO BASIS TO SUPPRESS?
>> WELL, TODAY I HAVE NOT HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH
YOU ABOUT OUR POSITION ON THE
MIRANDA.
I CAN SUM IT IN TWO SENTENCES.
ESSENTIALLY I AGREE WITH
JUSTICE CANADY'S OPINION IN MAB
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF A
TALISMANIC INCANTATION.
I BELIEVE THE FACTOR BETWEEN
MAB AND ALL THOSE CASE THERE IS
IS AT LEAST A THIRD OR SOME
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OTHER THAN
THE RIGHT YOU HAVE TO AN
ATTORNEY BEFORE QUESTIONING.
>> THE QUESTION REALLY IS HERE,
WE MAKE A DECISION THERE IS A
PROBLEM.
>> CORRECT.
>> THE MIRANDA WARNINGS THAT
WERE GIVEN, YOU HAVE AN ISSUE?
BUT IF THERE WAS NO PROBLEM
WITH THE MIRANDA WARNINGS THAT
WERE GIVEN, IT WAS PROPERLY
ADMITTED?
>> MY ARGUMENT IS THIS.
IF YOU FIND THAT MR.^RIGTERINK,
THAT WHAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY
CONCEDED BY THE TRIAL ATTORNEY
TO NOT BE CUSTODIAL
INTERROGATION, BECAME ONE AT
THE MOMENT HE WAS CONFRONTED
WITH THE BLOODY HAND AND THEN
HIS SUBSEQUENT FOURTH STATEMENT
WAS DURING A CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION, THE COURT HAD TO
GIVE HIM A PROPER MIRANDA
WARNING, AND THAT THE MIRANDA
WARNING THEY GAVE WAS DEFECTIVE
AND NOT CUREABLE UNDER MAB OR
UNDER POWELL OR UNDER THE LINE
OF FEDERAL CASES THAT STATE YOU
CAN GIVE, THERE IS NO MAGIC
INCANTATION BUT YOU MAY NOT,
NOT INFORM OF A RIGHT.
THE DISTINGUISHING PRINCIPLE
BETWEEN THE MIRANDA USED IN
THIS CASE, AND WHAT WAS DONE IN
MAB AND POWELL IS,
MR.^RIGTERINK WAS SOLELY TOLD,
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN
ATTORNEY PRIOR TO QUESTIONING
JUST LIKE WEST.
IN MAB, THE WARNING WENT ON TO
SAY, YOU CAN USE THESE RIGHTS
AT ANY TIME.
I BELIEVE THAT THE WARNING IN
THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE
CATEGORY OF THE WEST DECISIONS
AND IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAB
AND POWELL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
NOT INFORM AT ALL OF THE RIGHT.
IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO
INFORMING OF THAT, OF USING
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OR
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT LANGUAGE.
>> THANK YOU, MISS NORGARD, YOU
ARE WELL BEYOND --
>> CAN I JUST ONE QUESTION?
I'M TROUBLED BY, I THINK WE
HAVE A CASE, SCHOENFELD.
SHOHENWATER.
>> SCHOENWETTER.
>> IT'S 18-YEAR-OLD MAN,
RIDING A BICYCLE, STABBING SIMILAR TO
THIS, SOMEHOW TWO GIRLS STABBED
IN A HOME AND THEY FOLLOW THE
BLOOD BACK TO HIS HOME OR
SOMETHING?
>> IF THE COURT WILL GIVE ME,
JUSTICE QUINCE --
>> WHY IS THAT NOT CONTROLLING?
AS I RECALL IN THAT CASE THERE
WAS A PROBLEM WITH MIRANDA AND
THE CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED ON
AN 18-YEAR-OLD?
>> CORRECT IRBELIEVE THE
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES BETWEEN
SCHOENWETTER AND THIS CASE
THERE WERE CLOSE INDICATIONS IN
THE CASE FROM SCHOENWETTER.
HE THOUGHT HE WAS COMING HOME.
HE SAID HE WAS COMING HOME.
WHEN HE GOT THERE, THEY HAD NOT
IDENTIFIED THAT BLOOD TRAIL AS
BEING HIS.
AND NEVER DID SO DURING THE
INTERROGATION PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THAT ALTHOUGH THEY
SHOWED THE BLOOD TRAIL LED FROM
THE SCENE OF OFFENSE TO HIS
HOUSE NOBODY WHILE HE WAS IN
POLICE CUSTODY SWABBED THAT
BLOOD AND RAN THE DNA AND CAME
BACK AND SAID,
MR.^SCHOENWETTER, THIS IS
YOURS, NOW GET OUT OF IT.
>> DID THEY SAY TO HIM THERE IS
BLOOD LEAVING FROM WHERE THE
GIRLS WERE KILLED TO YOUR
HOUSE?
THAT IS NOT CONFRONTATION.
>> THERE IS SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE IN CONFRONTATION
THAT WE'VE GOT A BLOODY
FINGERPRINT.
SCHOENWETTER KNEW THERE WAS
BLOOD HERE TO THERE.
NOT THAT YOU KNOW IT'S MY
BLOOD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS
NORGARD, WITH THAT YOU'VE GONE
WELL OVER YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE.
>> THE COURT IS NOW IN RECESS.
>> PLEASE RISE.