Featured Cause
-
End Homelessness
- 2204 Members
- 2092 Actions
- $205 Dollars Raised
How Not to Conduct An Interrogation
Published November 19, 2008 @ 05:13PM PST
Prosecutors released an interrogation tape yesterday in the much-discussed case of an eight-year-old Arizona boy charged with killing his father and another man. The tape is unpleasant to watch, and it certainly doesn't help the prosecution's case. The boy first says he came home and found his father and a neighbor dead. The questioning gets more pointed and the boy tells police that he shot the two men.
He was never read his rights. Neither a lawyer nor a guardian was present. This kid is eight.
Much of the legal discussion on the web today focused on the interrogation, which indeed was completely inappropriate for a child. But I'm thinking about the comments on the blog preaching to the choir, which asks why the hell we're seeing this tape now:
... the video was released. By the prosecutor's office. And why? Because it's a matter of public record, according to Apache County Attorney Christopher Candelaria, so they were OBLIGATED to release it.
What? No, let me amend that. WTF??? The alleged videotaped confession of an 8 year-old charged with murder in an on-going investigation is a matter of public record? What have we been doing all these years messing with motions for discovery? We didn't need to mess with reciprocal discovery rules. We just needed to be filing open records requests! How could none of us have known that? Did the entire criminal defense bar miss the day in law school when they explained this public records stuff?
Could it be that prosecutors let the video out to the public because they fear it won't be admissible, and wanted to make sure potential jurors in the small county saw it online?
Watch the video for yourself after the jump.
Getting back to the interrogation procedure. Questioning a child like this, without a lawyer or parent, after he found his dad dead, is a surefire way to cook up a false confession. He could be aiming to please, interpreting the disapproving tone from the officers. He could be confused. He could be in shock.
False confessions are real. They're more common when the defendant is a juvenile. I have no idea if this kid is innocent or guilty, but this wasn't the right way to question him, and then prosecutors compounded the error by releasing the tape to the public.
Comments
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Matt Kelley
- Brooklyn, NY
-
Matt has worked and volunteered in various capacities in criminal justice reform for several years. When he's not blogging, he works as the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project. Views expressed here are Matt's, and don't represent the positions of the Innocence Project.
I have watched this video repeatedly. It is clear to me that this child was doing what most children do at this age. He was giving the adults the answers they wanted. Despite not being able to actually see his face, one needs but listen to his voice and pay attention to his body language as well as to his head movements to see that the child altered his responses each time one of the adults indicated their disapproval of the answer given by the child.
I paid close attention also to the tone of voice and the body language of the interrogators. Each adult would often lean forward, a threatening movement to any child-or for that matter to an adult-when they disapproved of his responses. The tone of voice from each interrogator quite clearly indicated when they either approved of disapproved of the child's response. After which, when asked the same question again, the child altered his response, quite often three or four times until he received approval for his answer from his interrogators. Yet, paying attention to his tone of voice and inflection, one would have to be deaf not to recognize the questioning tone of the child; that is to say the child's answers were not actually statements per se but reflected a question to his interrogators asking whether the answer he was now giving was the one they sought.
The McMartin Pre-school case leaps to mind. Numerous children in that case were later confirmed to have given false statements because of the techniques used in their questioning. Indeed, false confessions are very real, in particular, when it comes to juveniles.
I have heard claims by the police that they did not initially consider the child a suspect when they began his interview. They seem to be using this to excuse the fact that they did not wait for a parent or legal guardian or an attorney to be present. Yet it is clear from their questions on the released tape that they did indeed consider this child a suspect. I see no admission by the police that they Mirandized this child nor that either a parent, legal guardian or an attormey was notified or present during the over four hours of interrogation this child underwent.
One can only hope that a competant attorney will be on this case and also that a competent judge will, at the very least, suppress any and all statements made by this child as well as any testimony from those who participated in his interrogation. Actually, the entire case should be immediately dismissed with prejudice. The mere fact that this child had no representation and was not Mirandized is more than sufficient grounds to dismiss.
On the subject of the release of information in an on-going police investigation such as tapes or statements made by "suspects" or, using the current popular phrase, "persons of interest" to authorities during arrest or interrogations, I am absolutely appalled that it seems to have become almost routine.
From the release of phone calls between Nick Bollea (The son of Hulk Hogan) and his parents, to the release of jail house photos of Britney Spears, to the leaking of the name of "person of interest" Steven J Hatfill in the anthrax case, to the release of interrogation tapes and videos in the case of this eight year old, it is becoming routine for law enforcement agencies to attempt to "stack the deck" against defendants by attempting to taint jury pools. This is unconscionable! How convenient it is to claim that such information is a "matter of public record" when it can only become such by the actions of the police, prison employees, prosecutors or judges. What ever happened to the rule of law or, for that matter, ethical behavior?
Posted by Cynthia W on 11/20/2008 @ 12:09AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
NO! This child should have never been alone, there should have been a family member there for the support he required. This should have never happened this way, the tape should never be admissible evidence in court. This child will never have a normal life, please put yourself in his place for one minute!
I CAN'T IMAGINE.
Posted by Cecilia Ruiz on 11/20/2008 @ 07:41AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a little boy - a mere child! He needs protection - his rights were violated. Also, he could not possibly understand the outcome of his statements, much less the outcome of what he has potentially done! How can we help to get this child a good attorney? He should be out of jail right now - certainly he is not a threat to society if he is with a caring adult at this time.
Karen B
Posted by Karen Bjorkman on 11/20/2008 @ 01:09PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.