Her reaction is really just not too important. The question is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave, not whether Casey felt free to laugh.
Clearly she is not reasonable. A reasonable person IMO would have understood once the Universal interrogation began that they were in SERIOUS TROUBLE! Casey did not. :waitasec:
I'm not sure what more to say about the "in custody" issue. It does not matter WHY the person was in custody--the question is WHETHER they were in custody.
AZlawyer - thank you for being patient with me! I now get that the why doesn't matter. That was part of my problems with understanding this!
Now, I guess my problem with it all is the reasonableness of the assumption of being "IN CUSTODY" --- To me, the clear spoken words, that you are here on your own accord, the door is closed only for privacy and you are free to leave at any point (paraphrasing LE words on the tape) far outweigh the ambiguous pondering if a "reasonable person" would have felt they were in custody. If she had been at the police station, in an interrogation room - that would have 'up'ed' the ante for me that a reasonable person would have felt she/he was not in fact free to go, despite what was CLEARLY stated over and over.
I know the expression, "actions speak louder than words" but to me, the actions here were hey, here is a room - lets sit down and talk about this. After all, they were there following up on part of her 'alibi' (not in the technical sense, I guess) of getting a phone which could hold the key info. The line is so fine, and the one thing I am sure of -- is they were right there next to the line, but were their toes on it? To me, the verbal statements were far clearer than any action on behalf of LE. There were no cuffs at that point. She was not in the back of a police car. She was not in the police station. She could have refused the ride to Universal. She states or agrees she is there because she wants their help to find her daughter. IDK -- it is just such a fine, fine line as far as this legal argument goes to a nonprofessional lay person like me!
I found this link - and it helps : but also shows just how vague it all is, IMHO!
http://www.tlgattorneys.com/2010/06/custody-and-interrogation-for-purposes-of-miranda/
Under custody: "The test generally measures whether a reasonable person would believe that officer in some way suggested that they were not free to leave and custody is therefore not limited to formal arrests."
----> To me, the words spoken were stronger than any assumption I can see.
Then they say:
It is more likely that an individual is in custody where:
There is a traditional arrest and constraint (handcuffs, closed room, etc.)
(so they use closed room as example, but again it was at a public place she led them to and accepted their invitation to go there and implied she wanted help finding zanny and Caylee.)
Detention is long and involuntary
(define long, to me it was not long?)
An individual is placed in hostile and unfamiliar surroundings
(Even though she didn't work there at the time, it was familiar - enough that she led them there and I just didn't pick up 'hostile' To me hostile might have been there if they said, "we are not leaving here till you tell me" or "if you don't tell us now, we will arrest you and you will never see Tony again." KWIM?
It is less likely that an individual is in custody where:
There is a routine traffic stop
Detention is brief and voluntary (as in a brief field interview)
( See, to me it was both brief and voluntary. She could have said no when they called or arrived. They were there as a result of her leading the way!)
The police call an individual on the telephone (since the individual is free to hang up)
The red inserted is my thoughts. BTW, you can but don't need to respond to this as it is me venting and wishing I had the clarity of understanding that your education and experience afford you. Just seems so subjective. I can't wait for Judge Perry to rule and see his explanation in writing as to this point in the case I have ABSOLUTELY (hehe, used and A word!) have understood all of his written and verbal rulings.
Last thing, before I "UnVENT!" LOL
I could have seen a better argument for JB to have said this was a delayed warning situation.
" Delayed warnings: If a suspect confesses without Miranda, but is given a Miranda warning later at the station and confesses again, the second confession can be used against the suspect." (from link above)
UUUUUUGHHH! :banghead::banghead: (again, no reply needed - as I know the :deadhorse: but maybe someone should beat me instead! LOL)
)..ICA has a father who is ex LE, you think she doesn't know the law? Dating deputies and you think she doesn't know the law??? ICA is not some wallflower, she is very adept at what she does, LIE, just like her entire family does. I will never understand how GA was a police officer, he couldn't have lost his skills, could he? Oh right, it's CA fault GA didn't use this skills, just as he told the FBI, when they asked him....CA wouldn't let me...I'm just flabbergasted with the things that come out of their mouths..Lying isn't a crime? It certainly is when you deliberately lie to police about a missing child...remember, this is all about Caylee and what ICA did to her...defense is missing this key element and making this all about ICA...JMHO
