 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon v. State9/9/2004
e of possible probation made the interview coercive. We upheld the denial of his suppression motion, finding no evidence in the record tending to indicate that Simmers was unusually susceptible to coercion or easily influenced by the detective.
We also addressed at length the issue of coercive activity by law enforcement in Hannon, 51. We applied the following standard:
Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.
We recognized that a finding of coercion or overreaching by law enforcement does not necessarily require evidence of violence, threats, overt intimidation or misconduct, and that the inquiry is a fact-sensitive one. Id. 54. In Hannon, we considered whether the police officer's non-adversarial style and promise that he would not charge the defendant that day, together with the defendant's low mental ability and acquiescence in the officer's suggestions as to what occurred with respect to the offense charged were sufficient to make the interview coercive. We held that they were not. In reaching that result, we stated as follows:
we do not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous; the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be given the evidence; and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination. The trial court held a full evidentiary hearing on Mr. Hannon's motion to suppress the statements and had the opportunity to hear the witness' testimony and weigh their credibility. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we hold it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Id. at 59.
Considering this precedent, we do not find detective Walsh's statement in response to Mr. Gordon's question that he might have been allowed to go home if he had answered their questions sufficient evidence of coercion to warrant reversal of the district court's ruling.
Circumstances of the Interview Caused Him to Make Involuntary Statements
Mr. Gordon alleges suppression of his statements was required because of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview. Specifically, he re-alleges the assertions made in his other arguments, i.e. two different detectives interrogated him for one to one and a half hours in a locked interview room at the police department, one of the detectives made in implied promise that he would have been allowed to go home if he had answered the questions, instead of securing counsel when he requested it the detectives left him in a locked room until he pleaded with them to come back, they then resumed questioning him. In Simmers, we identified the following circumstances for consideration in applying the totality of circumstances test:
[T]he atmosphere and events surrounding the elicitation of the statement, such as the use of violence, threats, promises, improper influence or official misconduct, the conduct of the defendant before and during the interrogation and the defendant's mental condition at the time the statement is made[,]whether the defendant was in custody or was free to leave and was aware of the situation; whether Miranda warnings were given prior to any interrogation and whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights; whether the defendant had the opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to the interrogation; whether the challenge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|