Reuters reported on February 10, 2011 in “A New Jersey judge said on Thursday he will not make a decision for at least a week on whether to admit into trial the confession of a church janitor accused of killing a local priest” that an Easton, Pennsylvania man was charged with murder and robbery in the October 22, 2009 stabbing death of a priest at St. Patrick’s Church in Chatham, New Jersey. Morris County Superior Court Judge reserved deciding on the admissibility of statements the janitor made following the slaying. Defense attorneys said the confession should not be allowed as evidence because authorities misled the janitor into thinking his family would be taken care of if he confessed. According to a videotape of the janitor describing the stabbing to an investigator with the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, the priest and the janitor argued during a discussion about a four-year sexual relationship. When the priest threatened to fire him, the janitor grabbed a knife and stabbed the priest until he was dead. In the videotape, the investigator asked the janitor several times if he wanted to stop talking and get an attorney and each time the janitor said no.
In criminal cases, when a defendant does not want incriminating evidence introduced at trial, defense counsel files a motion to suppress. In deciding on a motion to suppress, courts often look to whether the suspect knows s/he can terminate the interrogation with police. It is difficult for someone to argue s/he’s in custody when a reasonable person understands s/he is free to terminate an interview with authorities.
At a police station, just because an officer accompanies a suspect when s/he moves about, does not mean there is custodial interrogation. When there is nothing restraining a person from leaving like chains or handcuffs, a defendant is less able to argue s/he is not free to leave.
Unless police use strong arm tactics like manifesting a belief that a person is culpable along with evidence to prove it, or being aggressive, confrontational or threatening, according to Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977), a defendant who voluntarily agrees to an interview with police does not need to be given Miranda warnings: “any interview of one suspected of a crime by police will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the policeman is part of a law enforcement system…police are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question.”
When accused of a crime, engage an experienced New Jersey criminal defense attorney to file a motion to suppress confessions that violate constitutional rights.
