 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Medina6/25/2001
s confession.
Despite the fact that Medina was not in custody on November 26, the videotape demonstrated that the two police officers were interrogating Medina in an effort to obtain his confession. See People v. Breidenbach, 875 P.2d 879, 885-87 (Colo. 1994) (recognizing that police interrogation may occur even in the absence of custody). On the videotape, the detective who spoke with Medina and other members of his family at the hospital plainly alluded to the prior conversation he had with Medina. The trial court found this to be significant because the detective previously told Medina that Selena would lose custody of the child unless Medina confessed.
When Medina stated midway through the November 26 interview that perhaps he should obtain representation before continuing, the videotape showed that one of the detectives put down his pencil and closed his notepad dramatically, as if disgusted that Medina would choose to get a lawyer and not have the police help him with his family situation, or in recognition that the interview should end, or both. The other detective , without hesitation, took up the questioning, and Medina did not leave the room but continued answering questions.
When the confession was still not forthcoming, the detectives left Medina alone for a period of time. When they returned, the videotape showed the detective who conveyed the threat to Medina at the hospital and on the phone holding up a folder, saying that Medina had one last chance to help himself because the police had enough to proceed. The trial court found that the "help himself" remark and the other surrounding circumstances of the November 26 interrogation were acted out in a manner calculated to reinforce the threat to the family relationship.
The videotape provides corroboration for the trial court's finding that the threat induced Medina to go to the police station, shaped the November 26 interrogation, and had a significant role in inducing Medina's November 29 confession. See Valdez, 969 P.2d at 211. The trial court reasonably concluded, based on its review of the evidence, findings of fact, and totality of the circumstances examination that the police exploited Medina's psychological and emotional vulnerability, commencing at the hospital, continuing on the phone and through the first interview, and culminating in Medina's confession.
The detective threatened Medina with the child's removal from the family, despite his working knowledge as a police officer that the Department of Social Services and a court with jurisdiction would determine the child's placement - a process the detective knew was already underway because of the social worker's presence at the hospital.
It was not within the power, responsibility, or province of the interrogating officers to effectuate a temporary, much less a permanent removal of the child from his mother, although the pendency of criminal charges against both parents might contribute to at least a temporary removal. "When a permanent termination of parental rights is sought, a parent's rights must be protected `with fundamentally fair procedures.'" L.L. v. People, 10 P.3d 1271, 1276 (Colo. 2000). Here, the police utilized the threat of acting in the near term against Selena's custody of the child and Medina's long term relationship with Selena and the child if he did not confess.
In summary, the trial court found and concluded that the police conduct was calculated to cause Medina to believe that: (1) unless he confessed, the detective would cause the child to lose his mother and the mother, her child; and (2) if he did confess, mother and child would be together, and the detective would help Medina
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|