 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malloy v. State5/19/2000
't look good.
Malloy: No, it doesn't.
Baker: And I think you could help yourself a lot.
Malloy: No, these aren't facts in here, so . . .
Baker: Well, help me. Do you want to talk to me? Do you want to change these [facts]?
Malloy: Do I want to change them?
Baker: Do you want to tell me what the facts are? Do you want to talk to me?
Malloy: I'll talk to you all you want. I need to talk to a lawyer, though, obviously.
Baker: So you don't want to talk to me before you talk to a lawyer?
Malloy: Well, let me finish reading this, okay? Karri never saw me with that knife. When we got all the stuff - she helped me get all this stuff from Dee - he has tons of knives, he has tons.
Baker: This is just one element that we need to talk about.
Malloy: Okay.
Baker: hat I am sure is [that] I cannot ask you a single question, I cannot accept a single answer, unless you waive your Miranda rights and agree to talk to me. That's the bottom line. Now, do you want to talk to me?
Malloy: I don't know what all that means, and that's why I want to
Baker: What it means is this: You have the right to remain silent. Do know what that means?
Malloy: Yeah.
Baker: You don't have to talk to me; I've told you that many times.
Malloy: Uh-huh.
Baker: Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. That's pretty obvious, you know?
Malloy: Uh-huh.
Baker: You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you.
Malloy: I understand my rights.
Baker: That's what I mean.
Malloy: I don't understand what you mean by "waiving" my rights.
Baker: All I want to know is, do you understand these [rights]?
Malloy: Yes, I do.
Baker: Okay. And understanding these rights, do you want to talk to me?
Malloy: I told you I'd talk to you.
Based on this record, we agree with Judge Andrews that Malloy knowingly waived her right to counsel and consented to be interviewed on December 27th.
For all these reasons, we uphold the admissibility of Malloy's three interviews with the police.
3. Evidence that Karri Rundle had previously assaulted her son and her
family dog with knives
Prior to trial, the State asked Judge Andrews to issue a protective order that would preclude Malloy from introducing evidence that someone else might have killed K.H.. In response, Malloy filed an ex parte application outlining the evidence she expected to present that would implicate Karri Rundle as the murderer. Based on Malloy's offer of proof, Judge Andrews ruled that Malloy was entitled to present her evidence and to argue that Rundle was the killer.
At trial, Malloy presented evidence that Rundle was present in the hotel room during the days leading up to the murder, and that Rundle had participated in the various assaults on K.H.. A defense witness testified that Rundle had shown "extreme anger" toward K.H. in the days immediately preceding the murder and that, during an argument, Rundle had "lunged" at K.H. in a threatening manner. This same witness testified that it was Malloy who would try to calm Rundle down when she started to threaten K.H..
Malloy's son, J.M., likewise testified that Rundle repeatedly assaulted K.H. and that Malloy often tried to intervene to prevent these assaults. J.M. stated that, on one occasion when Rundle broke K.H.'s nose, Malloy stopped the fight and h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|