Kentucky Court of Appeals find confession could have been coerced
Written By:
Reid
Jan 25, 2007
In the case of Edmonds v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, January 2007, the trial court found the defendant's confession to be admissible; the Court of Appeals vacated the court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress and remanded the case for further consideration. In their opinion they stated, in part:
"In its order denying the suppression motion, the trial court agreed that the allegations of Edmonds against Cain, if true, were inexcusable, but went on to conclude that "the Court does not feel that it is necessary for purposes of this pending Motion to attempt to resolve the disputed testimony or to make Findings of Fact regarding what happened during this first interrogation by Cain." The court found that the lapse of 24 hours between the first and second interviews, the fact that the second interview was conducted in a different location, and the fact that Edmonds was given Miranda warnings before the second interview along with the court's finding that his rights had been "scrupulously honored" by Brand and Noel, served to dispel any taint arising from any alleged improprieties in the first interview.
We disagree. We believe that if the events did, in fact, occur as alleged by Edmonds, it would be grounds for suppressing the confession because the threat of death or sodomy still exists at least as long as the defendant is in custody. See Henson, 20 S.W.3d at 469-70 (indicating "offensive practices or oppressive conduct by the police officer" and physical abuse would be considered coercive police activity); Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S.Ct. at 1253 (credible threat of becoming victim of physical violence in prison sufficient to find confession product of coercion). See also, Hager v. Commonwealth, 300 Ky. 585, 189 S.W.2d 867 (1945)(confession inadmissible where there was evidence that police officers used violence in obtaining confession). Accordingly, we conclude it is necessary to remand to the trial court for findings of fact as to what occurred during the interrogation by Detective Cain on November 27, 2004, and application of the law thereto.
For the aforementioned reasons, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying Edmonds' motion to suppress is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Continue Reading
"In its order denying the suppression motion, the trial court agreed that the allegations of Edmonds against Cain, if true, were inexcusable, but went on to conclude that "the Court does not feel that it is necessary for purposes of this pending Motion to attempt to resolve the disputed testimony or to make Findings of Fact regarding what happened during this first interrogation by Cain." The court found that the lapse of 24 hours between the first and second interviews, the fact that the second interview was conducted in a different location, and the fact that Edmonds was given Miranda warnings before the second interview along with the court's finding that his rights had been "scrupulously honored" by Brand and Noel, served to dispel any taint arising from any alleged improprieties in the first interview.
We disagree. We believe that if the events did, in fact, occur as alleged by Edmonds, it would be grounds for suppressing the confession because the threat of death or sodomy still exists at least as long as the defendant is in custody. See Henson, 20 S.W.3d at 469-70 (indicating "offensive practices or oppressive conduct by the police officer" and physical abuse would be considered coercive police activity); Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S.Ct. at 1253 (credible threat of becoming victim of physical violence in prison sufficient to find confession product of coercion). See also, Hager v. Commonwealth, 300 Ky. 585, 189 S.W.2d 867 (1945)(confession inadmissible where there was evidence that police officers used violence in obtaining confession). Accordingly, we conclude it is necessary to remand to the trial court for findings of fact as to what occurred during the interrogation by Detective Cain on November 27, 2004, and application of the law thereto.
For the aforementioned reasons, the order of the Fayette Circuit Court denying Edmonds' motion to suppress is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.