Owens has filed *another* amended motion today to suppress the two hour interrogation. This time, he included some case law and citations! Only took him an initial filing and then two amended filings to get that included.
Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search
My notes/observations from today's hearing:
The judge has watched the entire two hour interrogation video prior to today's hearing. The female detective (CK) who interviewed Sarah is in the courtroom to testify. Owens asks CK if she agrees she didn't read out the last line on the Miranda card when reading the rights to Sarah. The state objects. The judge says to Owens, "Of the case law you provided to me, none of it stands for the proposition. Miranda identifies the four things that need to be addressed. Not one of the cases talks about the issue of not reading that language at the bottom of the card... So how is it relevant for today?" Owens gives up on questioning CK for awhile and debates the judge on this issue. Owens, seeming to be grasping at straws here, argues it means Sarah was coerced into being interrogated and CK's intent was to deceive Sarah into talking.
Owens goes back to questioning CK. She says she's had the same physical Miranda card, issued by the department, for a few years and it does not contain the last question that Owens is referring to ("With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?"). CK says there are multiple version of Miranda cards that the department uses and the one she has doesn't have that question on it. Owens continues with questions and the state repeatedly objects on the grounds of relevance and the judge rules many of the objections as sustained.
The judge finally says that the question "With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?" are not part of Miranda. Case law about Miranda list what's required and that question is not part of it, so what's Owens even going on about? Owens admits this but continues arguing that CK failed to do her job by not asking if Sarah *wanted* to talk after being read the rights and "the court should consider" that. Owens seems like he's floundering here, IMO.
CK is dismissed. Then Owens calls Sarah up to testify! She says she was worried, confused, hungover, etc. when being questioned by CK which Owens seems to want to imply those factors may have influenced her agreement to talk to CK. The state objects as none of that was in his written motion to suppress. The judge isn't happy with Owens playing "20 questions" with Sarah. The state comes up to cross examine Sarah and gets her to admit that she was under the influence of alcohol (still, from the night before) when she was interviewed by CK. The state argues that Sarah's memory isn't reliable as she was under the influence of alcohol and as such, she can't be a reliable witness in this hearing.
The judge will review everything and provide his decision in a written motion by the end of day tomorrow.
Regarding the motion for Sarah to have her makeup done, hair styled, clothing provided, and no restraints for the trial, the judge says Owens can coordinate with the jail staff to drop off clothing for Sarah to wear on the trial days but she will be wearing leg restraints. Owens says he has "two females on the team" who can do Sarah's hair and makeup. The judge initially says Owens's staff can do Sarah's hair and makeup in the court room after Sarah is brought in but before court is called to order, but then court staff says Sarah would be brought back to the jail at the end of the day with makeup on which would be contraband so having makeup put on in the court room isn't going to happen.
They move on. The judge wants to talk about Owens's witness list that included staff from the state attorney's office, and the state's subsequent motion to prevent these people from testifying due to state laws protecting them. Owens wants to have them testify about Sarah and Jorge's past arrest history and whether or not Sarah requested DV charges against Jorge be dropped, which the state then says is protected information they cannot provide in testimony. The judge says he'll provide a written decision on this by tomorrow, too.
www.law.cornell.edu
