 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Troglin3/12/2002
es throughout their conversation. Emiren advised Defendant that the purpose of the interview was to obtain information. He did not advise Defendant of his Miranda rights. At that time, he was only a witness. Defendant gave an account of the previous day's events in narrative form. The account was specific as to times, persons encountered, and what activities Defendant had engaged in. Emiren testified that he noted the odor of beer on Defendant, but that he did not appear "fuzzy," evince an inability to remember things, or appear unable to comprehend what was happening at any time during their conversation. Emiren further testified that he never suggested that Defendant could not leave the jail, or terminate the interview, or quit talking at any time.
Emiren handwrote Defendant's statement and, when the interview was nearly completed, Emiren read the statement back to him. Defendant made some changes, initialed them, and signed the document. To summarize, Defendant claimed in his statement that he had no knowledge of, or anything to do with, Wilkey's death. Based upon his statement, it appeared to Emiren that Defendant could account for his actions during the time period that Wilkey was most likely killed. Although Emiren conceded that the information he received from Defendant did not correspond with other information he had received, Emiren testified that he had no reason to arrest Defendant.
Emiren further testified that Defendant became briefly upset one time, when Emiren asked whether he would be willing to submit to a polygraph test. Defendant demanded the number of his attorney and threatened to sue the county. Emiren handed him a telephone directory. Shortly thereafter, Defendant "settled right back down, and wanted some coffee." Emiren had no knowledge that Defendant was illiterate. When the interview was completed, Defendant told Emiren that he was not feeling well. He requested that Emiren call his employer to inform him that he would not be reporting for work the next day. Emiren agreed. Angel and another officer then drove Defendant home.
At the suppression hearing, Defendant testified that he had no knowledge regarding the offense he was charged with and appeared largely unable to recall any significant details of the conversations that had occurred between him and his attorney concerning his trial. Defendant professed a general inability to assist with his defense or comprehend his situation. Among other things, Defendant claimed that he was unable to give his attorney names or information about potential witnesses, that he could not recall what constituted an alibi defense, that he was unaware that his jury trial had been scheduled for the next day, that he did not understand the concept of plea bargaining, and, generally, that he did not understand what he was doing in court that day. With regard to the circumstances surrounding his statement, Defendant testified that he recalled speaking with Emiren at the jail. However, he claimed that Emiren never read his statement to him and that he did not know what he was signing. (On November 24, 1999, the trial court ordered that Defendant undergo a forensic mental evaluation to determine his mental condition at the time of the offense and whether he was competent to stand trial. The record does not contain the results of the evaluation, but we may assume that Defendant was found mentally competent since the matter ultimately went to trial.)
The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress in an order filed October 5, 1999, which may be summarized as follows: The trial court expressed "concern" over the facts that (1) the interview took place during a late hour at the jail, which was some distance from Defend
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|