Judge Rules against Alleged Murderers

calamity · Mar 20, 2018

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.

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.

According to the state, represented by assistant prosecutors Cheri Stout and David Hayes, the entirety of the interview and all of Merrick’s statements were voluntary and that the reading of Miranda rights was not required.

Younger Merrick’s trial continued - Fairborn Daily Herald

I agree with both decisions.

Slingshot Bob · Mar 20, 2018

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.

I find the part about the interview being voluntary and Miranda rights not being required, troubling. He was under arrest, right?

calamity · Mar 20, 2018

Slingshot Bob said:
I find the part about the interview being voluntary and Miranda rights not being required, troubling. He was under arrest, right?

No. He came along voluntarily for "questioning." He was arrested after he sang like a bird. It's a common tactic.

Cops use it on "persons of interest" because they know those people will make self serving statements which often are quite incriminating. This appeared to be exactly such a case. Brett admitted being at the scene, but he argued that he was not the shooter, his brother was.

Thank god criminals are stupid.

Slingshot Bob · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
No. He came along voluntarily for "questioning." He was arrested after he sang like a bird. It's a common tactic.

Cops use it on "persons of interest" because they know those people will make self serving statements which often are quite incriminating. This appeared to be exactly such a case. Brett admitted being at the scene, but he argued that he was not the shooter, his brother was.

Thank god criminals are stupid.

First off, don't kill people (outside of true self defense or military service) Secondly, never submit to a search or entry or "volunteer" for a damn thing.

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
No. He came along voluntarily for "questioning."

Where did you ascertain that piece of information?

chuckiechan · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
Where did you ascertain that piece of information?

It’s like a cop asking if he can search your car. If he legally can, he won’t ask. If he can’t he will. If you say no, he is likely to make your life miserable as possible, possibly including a false arrest depending on the culture of the department.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
Where did you ascertain that piece of information?

One of about a dozen or more articles I read on this case since Jan 2017.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

chuckiechan said:
It’s like a cop asking if he can search your car. If he legally can, he won’t ask. If he can’t he will. If you say no, he is likely to make your life miserable as possible, possibly including a false arrest depending on the culture of the department.

I had that happen to me in 2004. They held me for nearly 12 hours. He never searched my car though.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Slingshot Bob said:
First off, don't kill people (outside of true self defense or military service) Secondly, never submit to a search or entry or "volunteer" for a damn thing.

True. The cops would have had a much harder time putting together a case without Brett's confession and Dustin's gun.

Thank god for stupid criminals.

ludin · Mar 21, 2018

Slingshot Bob said:
I find the part about the interview being voluntary and Miranda rights not being required, troubling. He was under arrest, right?

This is why you never go on an interview with the police without a lawyer.
It is also why you have a right to ask 2 questions.

am i being charged?

if not i am leaving.

the 3rd is i want a lawyer.

that is all you should ever say to the police during an interview.
if they refuse then they are in major trouble.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

ludin said:
This is why you never go on an interview with the police without a lawyer.
It is also why you have a right to ask 2 questions.

am i being charged?

if not i am leaving.

the 3rd is i want a lawyer.

that is all you should ever say to the police during an interview.
if they refuse then they are in major trouble.

Yep. He should have forced them to make an arrest.

And, the other brother should have thrown the gun in a deep lake, far from home. Instead, he kept it and then showed it to the cops when they asked if he had the gun they were looking for. Cops knew exactly what make and model gun was used for the deed from shell casings found at the scene. Most criminals don't know that each gun maker manufacturers them such that a a family of guns leave unique ejection patterns that are stored on the FBI or ATF databases.

Thank god for stupid criminals.

chuckiechan · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
I had that happen to me in 2004. They held me for nearly 12 hours. He never searched my car though.

That’s pretty balsy. What did they have you do? Sit in a cold room in a T shirt?

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

chuckiechan said:
That’s pretty balsy. What did they have you do? Sit in a cold room in a T shirt?

Pretty much. The cop was pissed. He pulled me over in a known drug area. I wasn't there to buy drugs, just to cut through so as to avoid a backup on the interstate, but I had good reason not to want my car searched.

Anyway, the excuse used to haul me in was an Amber alert. They claimed my car matched the description. It was bull****. But, they had enough to hold me for a long time. And, they did nothing but leave me in a room, alone forever. At the end, they drove me back to my car. I was actually surprised it was still there, in one piece.

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

chuckiechan said:
It’s like a cop asking if he can search your car. If he legally can, he won’t ask. If he can’t he will. If you say no, he is likely to make your life miserable as possible, possibly including a false arrest depending on the culture of the department.

I asked where he ascertained that piece of information.
Your reply has nothing to do with that query.

calamity said:
Where did you ascertain that piece of information?

Click to expand...

One of about a dozen or more articles I read on this case since Jan 2017.

So what you are really saying is that you have no such link to such information.
Figures.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
I asked where he ascertained that piece of information.
Your reply has nothing to do with that query.

So what you are really saying is that you have no such link to such information.
Figures.

Sure I do. In fact, there was a thread on that subject back when the motions were filed.

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
Sure I do. In fact, there was a thread on that subject back when the motions were filed.

So again; Where did you ascertain that piece of information?
Do you really not understand that is asking you to supply your source?

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

For anyone interested, here's some history on Brett's motion to suppress.

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.

“I was trying to get him to not ruin his life over protecting his brother because at that point I didn’t think he was involved with the murder,” Hagaman said, in response to his line of questioning.

...Merrick — who allegedly was never threatened, handcuffed, or forced to stay during the interview — was placed under arrest when the interview ceased.

Defense asks to suppress Merrick evidence - Fairborn Daily Herald

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
So again; Where did you ascertain that piece of information?
Do you really not understand that is asking you to supply your source?

see post 17

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
see post 17

Thank you. Was that so hard?

I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Here's the motion relating to the suppression to suppress the gun.

Judge to decide on Merrick evidence - Beavercreek News Current

...When asked for consent to seize a 9 mm pistol, though, Dustin Merrick refused, according to present parties. Allegedly, Hornyak seized the pistol anyway.

Hornyak said the decision to seize the weapon was related to many factors, including the fact that that pistol could hold up to 13, potentially 14 rounds, and that there were only nine in it when it was confiscated. According to Hornyak, four matching casings were found at the murder scene.

...Edwards described Dustin Merrick’s demeanor at that moment.

“His face flushed dark red and he was wringing his hands,”

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
Thank you. Was that so hard?

I hope a Federal Court recognizes that this was an interrogation and that his rights were violated

lol...not when he went in on his own free will as a "witness."

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
lol...not when he went in on his own free will as a "witness."

Courts have long understood that what can start out voluntarily, can turn into a different beast.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Dustin allowed the officers to see and handle the gun, but he “expressly and clearly denied consent” for it to be seized, but the officers cited “exigent circumstances” and seized the gun anyway, according to the defendant’s motion to suppress.

“Law enforcement officials cannot merely utter ‘exigent circumstances’ to magically make their constitutional duties vanish. The state bears a heavy burden to prove with specific, articulable facts that the circumstance in this case constitutionally justified a warrantless seizure,” the defendant’s motion to suppress reads.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...y-capital-murder-case/5g1qzMpa7wF8Ykhtp1xKBI/

Uh, yes they can.

It's not the cops' fault that your client is a moron.

But, thank the gods that he is.

calamity · Mar 21, 2018

Excon said:
Courts have long understood that what can start out voluntarily, can turn into a different beast.

And, when it did, they read him his rights, as they were required.

You're not up on this stuff, are ya?

Excon · Mar 21, 2018

calamity said:
And, when it did. They read him his rights, as they were required.

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

calamity said:
You're not up on this stuff, are ya?

iLOL
Wrong as usual.

Judge Rules against Alleged Murderers

calamity

Privileged

Slingshot Bob

calamity

Privileged

Slingshot Bob

Excon

chuckiechan

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

ludin

calamity

Privileged

chuckiechan

calamity

Privileged

Excon

calamity

Privileged

Excon

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Excon

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Excon

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Excon