State v. Ortega, Sr.,, Minn.S.Ct., 4/18/2012. A jury convicted Mr. Ortega of aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder. What began as a neighborhood beer party ended in a knife fight.
Police officers arrested Mr. Ortega. Two BCA agents went over to interrogate him, but even before the agents could read a Miranda warning to him, Mr. Ortega said, “[w]ell then I’m not gonna say nothin’ I just want to have an attorney present if you’re gonna question me.” The agents left.
The local deputy investigator, Investigator Gunderson, however, came back later that day and took another run at Mr. Ortega. The investigator said at the suppression hearing that all he’d done was go into the interview room where Mr. Ortega was being held in order to talk to another deputy about taking Mr. Ortega to the jail. The next he knew, Mr. Ortega was showing Gunderson his head injuries and one thing lead to another and Mr. Ortega confessed. Mr. Ortega, on the other hand, said that Gunderson had briefly come into the interview room while the BCA agents were there and then left. Mr. Ortega said that the agents then threatened him and then they left. Gunderson then returned and one thing lead to another and he confessed.
Even so, Mr.Ortega would not tell Gunderson the whereabouts of the murder weapon. When Gunderson pressed him about it, Mr. Ortega said he’d have to talk to an attorney about that first. Gunderson changed the subject and kept on interrogating Mr. Ortega about other aspects of the murder.
Mr. Ortega complained that it was the officers who re initiated questioning of him after he invoked his right to counsel at the beginning of the interrogation. The court concluded, unfortunately for Mr. Ortega, on the basis of two statements that Mr. Ortega made that it was he who re initiated questioning. First, he asked Gunderson to look at his head wound. Now, true enough, this is more like a question about the custodial relationship – the question suggests that Mr. Ortega believes that he needs a doctor – that is not re initiating of questioning. State v. Staats, 658 N.W.2d 207 (Minn 2003). But, forget about that question because the second thing that Mr. Ortega said was to ask to speak to Gunderson. That looks for all the world like a “willingness and desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation.” Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (plurality opinion). That’s Mr. Ortega asking for a redo of the interrogation. Because Mr. Ortega conceded that he validly waived his right to counsel his admissions that followed were properly presented to the jury.
Mr. Ortega also complained that he again invoked counsel when he said he needed to speak to a lawyer before disclosing the whereabouts of the knife. The court dispenses with this claim in short order, concluding that the continuation of the interrogation (a) sought only to clarify just what kind of invocation Mr. Ortega was making, and (b) didn’t talk about the knife anyway.
Mr. Ortega’s defense at trial was self defense. During jury selection, the prosecutor asked potential jurors, “[d]o you think there is anything more valuable than human life?” Mr. Ortega objected, saying that it was not a question designed to elicit useful information on which to exercise a peremptory challenge, but was a back handed slam at his self defense claim. That went no where, and eventually both sides were asking the question.
So, the supreme court ducks the issue whether this was poor form or not, concluding that even if it were poor form the questioning did not for three reasons affect the outcome of the case. First, in a self defense case, the question may even have helped Mr. Ortega. Second, the trial court told the jury what the elements of the offenses were, including self defense. Third, the prosecutor never argued that the jury should reject Mr. Ortega’s self defense claim because there were no circumstances that justified the taking of a life.
No comments:
Post a Comment