• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Rules against Alleged Murderers

Excon said:
When? No, that is not apparent. After it did? Yes.


iLOL
Wrong as usual.
Click to expand...
The key is that he volunteered to go in to talk to the cops. Had he refused and forced them to make an arrest, Miranda would have applied. Also, once he became a suspect, Miranda applied. It's easy to argue that he was a witness until he said too much. There is no Miranda protection for being stupid.
 
calamity said:
The key is that he volunteered to go in to talk to the cops. Had he refused and forced them to make an arrest, Miranda would have applied. Also, once he became a suspect, Miranda applied. It's easy to argue that he was a witness until he said too much. There is no Miranda protection for being stupid.
Click to expand...
No that is not the key.

So again. I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated."
 
Excon said:
No that is not the key.

So again. I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated."
Click to expand...

It is.

And, they weren't.

An interview is generally an interaction between police officers and witnesses or victims in an investigation. There are times when a suspect will be interviewed as well. The point of the interview is simply to get more information. An interview is meant to find out what the witness saw. It can help to determine what information the witness knows, what other witnesses might be found, and other things that are of importance to the police. The same is true when interviewing a victim.

By contrast, an interrogation is an interaction between police officers and a suspect. Victims and witnesses are not interrogated. Interrogations generally take place in a situation in which the suspect is in custody. The officers are not primarily trying to get information. Instead, they are trying to get the suspect to confess. Therefore, police who are doing an interrogation may bluff or deceive the suspect. Their goal is to obtain a confession….

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-interrogation-and-interviewing
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Wrong. The key is whether it was an interrogation or not.
So again; "I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated."

Wtf? iLOL
Click to expand...
Here, in bold, is why no federal court will overturn this.

Hagaman said the interview was casual, that Merrick was articulate and cooperative and said he wanted to help. Hagaman said he thought of Merrick as a witness who was just trying to protect his brother.
Click to expand...

It was an interview, not an interrogation.
 
calamity said:
Here, in bold, is why no federal court will overturn this.



It was an interview, not an interrogation.
Click to expand...
No Calamity that does not change the nature of what occurred and has no relevance as to whether or not a Federal Court will find otherwise or not.



So again; "I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated."
 
Excon said:
No Calamity that does not change the nature of what occurred and has no relevance as to whether or not a Federal Court will find otherwise or not.



So again; "I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated."
Click to expand...
Won't happen since he'll probably plead guilty to avoid the DP. Slam dunk.
 
calamity said:
Won't happen since he'll probably plead guilty to avoid the DP. Slam dunk.
Click to expand...
Slam dunk? iLOL
You clearly have a misconception of what a "slam dunk" is.
 
Excon said:
Slam dunk? iLOL
You clearly have a misconception of what a "slam dunk" is.
Click to expand...

Incriminating statements, DNA at the scene, ballistics match on the murder weapon--slam dunk.

They'll both end up pleading guilty if the prosecution takes the death penalty off the table.
 
calamity said:
Incriminating statements, DNA at the scene, ballistics match on the murder weapon--slam dunk.

They'll both end up pleading guilty if the prosecution takes the death penalty off the table.
Click to expand...
iLOL
All irrelevant to the point of contention.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
All irrelevant to the point of contention.
Click to expand...

There is no point of contention. Judge ruled the evidence admissible. And, your dreams of a federal court overturning it only applies if the case goes to trial and ends with a conviction. It won't go to trial.

Lawyers are already busy trying to get the state to drop the death penalty. Once they do, their client will plead guilty. Guilty pleas cannot be appealed.

The state knows this too. THey also know that DP convictions go through decades of appeals. Hence, they probably will drop the DP.
 
calamity said:
There is no point of contention.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual. Everything else was irrelevant.
Of course there is a point of contention. It why you keep trying to argue otherwise.

Everything you said is irrelevant to the point of contention. An argument as to whether or not it was an interrogation can be made under the law regardless of what a Judge has ruled.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
I find the part about the interview being voluntary and Miranda rights not being required, troubling. He was under arrest, right?
Click to expand...


The article doesn't say: The six-hour-long interview was conducted by Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) special agents and a Greene County Sheriff’s detective nine days after the January 2017 alleged murders of William “Skip” Brown and Sherri Mendenhall in Yellow Springs. Merrick’s defense attorneys Dennis Lieberman and Michael Pentecost filed the motion to suppress evidence, claiming Merrick’s rights had been violated when law enforcement officials failed to give him a Miranda warning until an hour and 45 minutes into an interview.

Miranda warnings are only required if an individual is subject to "custodial interrogation" and the government seeks to introduce his statements.



In determining whether an individual is in custody, “[t]he crucial question is whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was in custody.... Thus, if the defendant reasonably believed that he was not free to leave, the interrogation occurred while the defendant was in custody, and Miranda warnings were required.” In making that determination, we consider various factors: “(1) the place of the interrogation; (2) whether the officers have conveyed to the person being questioned any belief or opinion that that person is a suspect; (3) the nature of the interrogation, including whether the interview was aggressive or, instead, informal and influenced in its contours by the person being interviewed; and (4) whether, at the time the incriminating statement was made, the person was free to end the interview by leaving the locus of the interrogation or by asking the interrogator to leave, as evidenced by whether the interview ended with an arrest.”

Commonwealth v. Hilton, 443 Mass. 597, 609 (2005) (recounting and applying federal test).



A voluntary interview can turn into custodial interrogation without there being a formal arrest, but the article doesn't give much info but I'd bet he wasn't under arrest at the start. Otherwise, the state's argument is incoherent.
 
Mr Person said:
The article doesn't say: The six-hour-long interview was conducted by Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) special agents and a Greene County Sheriff’s detective nine days after the January 2017 alleged murders of William “Skip” Brown and Sherri Mendenhall in Yellow Springs. Merrick’s defense attorneys Dennis Lieberman and Michael Pentecost filed the motion to suppress evidence, claiming Merrick’s rights had been violated when law enforcement officials failed to give him a Miranda warning until an hour and 45 minutes into an interview.

Miranda warnings are only required if an individual is subject to "custodial interrogation" and the government seeks to introduce his statements.



In determining whether an individual is in custody, “[t]he crucial question is whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was in custody.... Thus, if the defendant reasonably believed that he was not free to leave, the interrogation occurred while the defendant was in custody, and Miranda warnings were required.” In making that determination, we consider various factors: “(1) the place of the interrogation; (2) whether the officers have conveyed to the person being questioned any belief or opinion that that person is a suspect; (3) the nature of the interrogation, including whether the interview was aggressive or, instead, informal and influenced in its contours by the person being interviewed; and (4) whether, at the time the incriminating statement was made, the person was free to end the interview by leaving the locus of the interrogation or by asking the interrogator to leave, as evidenced by whether the interview ended with an arrest.”

Commonwealth v. Hilton, 443 Mass. 597, 609 (2005) (recounting and applying federal test).



A voluntary interview can turn into custodial interrogation without there being a formal arrest, but the article doesn't give much info but I'd bet he wasn't under arrest at the start. Otherwise, the state's argument is incoherent.
Click to expand...

If it moves from voluntary to an arrest, at that point Miranda enters the picture, pretty sure.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
If it moves from voluntary to an arrest, at that point Miranda enters the picture, pretty sure.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I typed?


If you are formally arrested, then yes, the police would have to give you Miranda warnings if they want your statements to be admissible at trial. But the legal test is more complicated than that because there situations where an individual has not been formally arrested but still must be given Miranda warnings in order for their statements to be admissible.

The legal test is whether someone is subject to "custodial interrogation." I gave you the test for whether someone is in custody. I did not give you the test for interrogation or its functional equivalent because that would not be relevant to this thread.
 
Mr Person said:
Did you read what I typed?


If you are formally arrested, then yes, the police would have to give you Miranda warnings if they want your statements to be admissible at trial. But the legal test is more complicated than that because there situations where an individual has not been formally arrested but still must be given Miranda warnings in order for their statements to be admissible.

The legal test is whether someone is subject to "custodial interrogation." I gave you the test for whether someone is in custody. I did not give you the test for interrogation or its functional equivalent because that would not be relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that, I briefly skimmed your last post as I was cooking a meal for someone at the time, I will go back over it in it's entirety.
 
calamity said:
The two brothers charged with the local double homicide back in Jan 2017 both lost their motions to suppress. Trials are now pushed back deep into the year. Brett, the younger brother, is scheduled to go to trial in October. A new trial date for the older brother, Dustin, has yet to be set.

Dustin tried to have his gun thrown out, arguing it was seized without a warrant. Cops argued exigent circumstance. Since he is now looking for a ballistics expert, apparently the judge sided with the prosecution. Good.

As for Brett, Here's the lowdown on his lost motion.



I agree with both decisions.
Click to expand...

This has been weighing heavy on my mind...
 
Mr Person said:
Did you read what I typed?


If you are formally arrested, then yes, the police would have to give you Miranda warnings if they want your statements to be admissible at trial. But the legal test is more complicated than that because there situations where an individual has not been formally arrested but still must be given Miranda warnings in order for their statements to be admissible.

The legal test is whether someone is subject to "custodial interrogation." I gave you the test for whether someone is in custody. I did not give you the test for interrogation or its functional equivalent because that would not be relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...

Smart cops are usually sure to remind the person being interviewed that they are free to leave, preferably on video.
 
Mr Person said:
The article doesn't say: The six-hour-long interview was conducted by Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) special agents and a Greene County Sheriff’s detective nine days after the January 2017 alleged murders of William “Skip” Brown and Sherri Mendenhall in Yellow Springs. Merrick’s defense attorneys Dennis Lieberman and Michael Pentecost filed the motion to suppress evidence, claiming Merrick’s rights had been violated when law enforcement officials failed to give him a Miranda warning until an hour and 45 minutes into an interview.

Miranda warnings are only required if an individual is subject to "custodial interrogation" and the government seeks to introduce his statements.



In determining whether an individual is in custody, “[t]he crucial question is whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was in custody.... Thus, if the defendant reasonably believed that he was not free to leave, the interrogation occurred while the defendant was in custody, and Miranda warnings were required.” In making that determination, we consider various factors: “(1) the place of the interrogation; (2) whether the officers have conveyed to the person being questioned any belief or opinion that that person is a suspect; (3) the nature of the interrogation, including whether the interview was aggressive or, instead, informal and influenced in its contours by the person being interviewed; and (4) whether, at the time the incriminating statement was made, the person was free to end the interview by leaving the locus of the interrogation or by asking the interrogator to leave, as evidenced by whether the interview ended with an arrest.”

Commonwealth v. Hilton, 443 Mass. 597, 609 (2005) (recounting and applying federal test).



A voluntary interview can turn into custodial interrogation without there being a formal arrest, but the article doesn't give much info but I'd bet he wasn't under arrest at the start. Otherwise, the state's argument is incoherent.
Click to expand...
The article cited in post 17 states he was brought in as a witness offering to "help."
 
Slingshot Bob said:
I find the part about the interview being voluntary and Miranda rights not being required, troubling. He was under arrest, right?
Click to expand...

The story does not say either way if they were formally under arrest. If they were then Miranda Rights were legally required, and the judge's decision is bogus. If not formally under arrest, then no Miranda were required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom