I've been wondering if the videotapes of Jodi's contradictory television interviews could be used in this Arizona criminal case. Apparently, they can. I've added a link to a previous Arizona court ruling on exactly this matter. This prospect makes all the more likely that the defense will accede to Jodi's apparent eagerness to testify. In effect, Jodi has already thrown herself onto the stand. All the defense can do is to put her on the stand to correct some of damage.
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...ases/Rulings/rulingsReaditem.asp?autonumb=289
The Court has reviewed the pleading filed, considered the evidence presented and has weighed the credibility of the witnesses who testified. Based on the pleadings and the evidence presented in Court,
THE COURT FINDS the Defendant has failed to produce sufficient facts to support the Defendants Motion to Suppress Press Conference Statements.
A person in police custody who knowingly and voluntarily assents to a press interview cannot invoke his Miranda rights in order to suppress statements made during the press interviews unless evidence shows compelling influences forced him to be interviewed. Ritchie v. State, 875 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. 2007). See also Roberson v. State, 265 Ga. 658 (1995).
Although the police may set up and allow for a press interview, the questioning of the media does not constitute police action. In Ritchie v. State, local press requested an interview with the Defendant, who was in police custody. 875 N.E.2d at 716. The Defendant consented to the interview, signed an Interview Release form and did not ask for a lawyer. Id. When the State used statements made during the press conference at trial, the Defendant claimed he considered the interviews actions on the part of the police and violated his Miranda rights. Id. The Defendant based the violation on the facts that the police asked if he was willing to be interviewed, created the opportunity for the interviews to occur, established the interview conditions, and knew the questions could elicit incriminating information. Id. The Defendant made statements voluntarily to the media rather than within a custodial interrogation. Id. at 717. While the police permitted the interviews, the media began and directed the questioning. Id.
The essential ingredients of a police-dominated atmosphere and compulsion are not present when an incarcerated person speaks freely to someone whom he believes is not an officer. Id. If the reporters actions could be considered action of the policy, procedural safeguards used effectively secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. The Defendant knew of his right to counsel in writing before the interviews. Id. The Defendant did not contend he [misunderstood] the Interview Release form or that the police coerced him into signing the form. Id. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence. Id.
In Roberson v. State, the press interviewed the Defendants while in custody at the jailhouse. 265 Ga. at 659. Before the interviews, the Defendants voluntarily assented to the interviews by signing a waiver form, recognizing they had a right to refuse to be interview and could end the interviews at any time. Id. The Defendants previously had invoked their right to counsel, but a lawyer had yet to be appointed. Id. The Deputy Sheriffs remained in the room during the interviews, but did not propose or ask a single question during the interviews. Id. Although the interviews would not have occurred without the help of the Sheriffs office, the press conducted the interviews and was not acting as agents of the police. Id. It is not the responsibility of the State to prevent the Defendants from making incriminating statements to the press when they agree to speak with them. Id.at 660.
Hausner, like the Defendants in Ritchie and Roberson, voluntarily assented to the interviews and signed the waiver form. According the testimony provided by the States witness, a police officer read the form to Hausner, passed the form to him, watched Hausner read the form and sign it. At no point during this transaction did Hausner ask to speak with his lawyer before signing the form nor did he indicate that he did not understand the form or what action it permitted. Although Hausner argues that he thought he signed the form in order to receive a blanket, his testimony was inconsistent with the Public Information Officer regarding this argument and the Court finds the officer was more credible and her testimony is corroborated by the other evidence presented. The form is clear on its face. There is no ambiguity what it is. Furthermore, Hausner made two phone calls after the press interview during which he asked if the person with whom he spoke had seen him on television. During these conversations, Hausner did not indicate that he felt confused, shocked or bewildered by the appearance of the press and questioning by the media.
The defense argues that the police should have waited for the Court appointed lawyer to arrive before escorting Hausner to the press conference. However, as demonstrated in referenced case law and testimony provided at the hearing, Hausner could have refused to sign the form until his attorney had arrived. As mentioned in Roberson and during the evidentiary hearing, it is not the responsibility of the State to prevent a person from making incriminating statements to the press. According, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Motion to Suppress Press Conference Statements is denied
Hope she and her NEW PD's are forging a better relationship than the last the two.