MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #13

[mominjc]

So did I = )

Did she say she already knew when you called? She seemed worried about that being on there when I called & said she took it off the arrest warrent but I told her it was on the offense cycle report and she was like "OH!"

 

[LadyBug99]

Did she say she already knew when you called? She seemed worried about that being on there when I called & said she took it off the arrest warrent but I told her it was on the offense cycle report and she was like "OH!"

Oh sorry...I meant that I saved the report. I would imagine that it will be removed very soon.

 

[Dal Gal]

Well it proves that she was born in California

 

[bigflaw]

It's a cell, not a land line.
Do a reverse phone directory and it will let you know its a cell phone based in Jeff City MO. Plus there are no landlines starting with 353 in JC.
Must be grandma's cell phone. Bet that number gets changed real quick now by the GPs. Oopss!

Ahh, sorry. Did not do my research. Bad sleuth, bad!

 

[mominjc]

Ahh, sorry. Did not do my research. Bad sleuth, bad!

:whipper:
Here's your beating! LOL

 

[Csquare]

Good evening my fellow sleuther's. Hope everyone is well and ready to throw around some more ideas.

 

[JLMcKenna83]

I'm still wondering what they have besides the written evidence. oh well.. I may not figure that out until the trial..

 

[human]

I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?

Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?

She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).

The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.

Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.

LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.

They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.

 

[lawlady84]

And this makes it sound like there was never any time for her to be advised by an attorney which IMO means EVERYTHING from the moment she started talking is fruit of the poison tree and should be tossed.

Hi all, I've been practically living down at work and am just getting a chance to catch up now.

But saw this and wanted to pop in- fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't apply to Miranda. U.S. v. Patane (2004) held physical evidence - even if retrieved based on information obtained in violation of Miranda - is almost always admissible. Court flat out said the exclusionary rule from Wong Sun doesn't apply in the 5th Amendment context. Absent actual coercion, the 5th Amendment isn't implicated by admission of physical evidence.

Missouri v. Seibert (2004) also held absent some coercion, a statement given in violation of Miranda doesn't automatically taint a later voluntary confession.

 

[Csquare]

I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?

Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?

She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).

The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.

Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.

LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.

They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.

If you are detained and not able to leave on your on when you want, then you have to have your rights read at that point. That is the way I understand it.

 

[Csquare]

Hi all, I've been practically living down at work and am just getting a chance to catch up now.

But saw this and wanted to pop in- fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't apply to Miranda. U.S. v. Patane (2004) held physical evidence - even if retrieved based on information obtained in violation of Miranda - is almost always admissible. Court flat out said the exclusionary rule from Wong Sun doesn't apply in the 5th Amendment context. Absent actual coercion, the 5th Amendment isn't implicated by admission of physical evidence.

Missouri v. Seibert (2004) also held absent some coercion, a statement given in violation of Miranda doesn't automatically taint a later voluntary confession.

Thank you. I apprecitate you sharing your knowledge.

 

[Csquare]

Here is an OT joke to share a laugh with my fellow posters....What is the difference between a 9 iron and a Cadilac Escalade?

Tiger Woods can back up a 9 iron. Thank you thank you I will be here all week. Please tip your waitress

 

[JLMcKenna83]

If you are detained and not able to leave on your on when you want, then you have to have your rights read at that point. That is the way I understand it.

So.. now I guess the question is whether or not she was being detained.. or simply questioned and free to leave whenever?

 

[Csquare]

So.. now I guess the question is whether or not she was being detained.. or simply questioned and free to leave whenever?

JMHO They were than likely were there to TALK to her and see what she knew. She may or may not have been a POI at that time. From what I recall her GM allowed her to talk. Don't know if she told her it was the right thing to do or if the GM even knew AB's involvement at the time.:twocents:

 

[JLMcKenna83]

Alright.

So now is it safe to come to the conclusion that AB's confession and written evidence were obtained legally? And there isn't much of a chance that they'll be thrown out?

 

[ynotdivein]

Good posts today, special thanks to mominjc who gets the Ethics Award for the day! :applause:

 

[Csquare]

Alright.

So now is it safe to come to the conclusion that AB's confession and written evidence were obtained legally? And there isn't much of a chance that they'll be thrown out?

IMHO that would be a safe assumption.

 

[JLMcKenna83]

Alright.. so now what else should we discuss?

 

[Csquare]

Alright.. so now what else should we discuss?

Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?

 

[JLMcKenna83]

Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?

I think the defense will try to push for a change... simply because of the type of case this is. Whether the judge will grant it or not.. that's another story.