As many of you know, the focus of the hearings over the last three days has been on whether Casey Anthony was “in custody” and, if so, at what point was she “in custody.”
And as has been discussed at WebSleuths by AZLawyer, Judge Perry’s decision will hinge on the following four factor analysis used in Florida and outlined in Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999):
- The manner in which police summon the suspect for questioning;
- The purpose, place, and manner of the interrogation;
- The extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt; and
- Whether the suspect is informed that he or she is free to leave the place of questioning..
The reason this analysis is so important is that if it is determined that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position (here, Casey Anthony) would have believed herself to be in custody, law enforcement would have been required to administer proper Miranda warnings at the point a reasonable person would have felt them self in custody. And any statements made after that point, without the benefit of Miranda, would have been illegally obtained and will, therefore, be suppressed.
On the other hand, if it was determined that Casey Anthony was not in custody, then law enforcement would not have had to administer Miranda warnings and all of Casey Anthony’s statements come in.
Miranda Warnings are no Guaranty
But even Miranda Warnings are no Guaranty. An excellent example of how easily law enforcement can hurt a case, even though it seemingly appeared they were doing everything by the book, is Ross v. State, 45 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 2010).
In Ross’ case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for First Degree Murder and found his right against self-incrimination was violated.
In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court provided more specific guidance for determining when a person is in custody – as it is at this point a person must be Mirandized, not before.
In making this determination, the Court laid out a two-factor analysis for the Court to use:
- The circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and
- Given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.
In using this analysis, along with the Ramirez framework, the Florida Supreme Court found that even though Law Enforcement administered Miranda “the timing and circumstances of the warnings undermined the intent and effectiveness of Miranda, particularly in light of the following:”
- The initial Miranda warnings were deliberately delayed and no warnings were given until after Ross made incriminating statements;
- Police downplayed the significance of the Miranda rights and misled Ross by assuring him that he was not being arrested “at the time” despite the incriminating evidence and Ross’s prior statements;
- Before continuing the post-warning interrogation, the police reminded Ross about his earlier admissions;
- Police did nothing to counter the probable mis-impression that Ross’s prior incriminating statements could be used against him; and
- Police treated the pre- and post-warning interrogation as one continuing round of questioning with only a minimal break but no change in circumstances.
- In addition, we also take into account that Ross was only twenty-one at the time with no indication of any prior experience with the criminal justice system.
The Focus of the Anthony Defense Questioning
And as you know, there were no Miranda warnings given in the Casey Anthony case at her house or during the walking tour she provided to law enforcement at Universal.
So if Custody is determined to have occurred at her house or at Universal Studios with no Miranda warnings ever given, you can be assured that the Florida Supreme Court will surely frown on the tactics used by Detectives Melich and Allen as in many ways, they mirror the law enforcement tactics used in Ross.
A Ray of Hope for the State
However, just today, the Fifth District Court of Appeals issue State v. Perez, 58 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), that is favorable to the State and might provide Judge Perry with some guidance on how to rule.
In Perez, the defendant was interviewed by law enforcement at his home, the law enforcement officer went there under the pretext of investigation one crime when it appears he was really investigating another crime and told the defendant’s mother to leave when he started asking about the second crime.
The trial court initially found that the officer’s lack of candor about his purpose along with telling the mother to leave indicated a Miranda violation under the Ramirez framework. However, just today, the Fifth DCA issued a ruling reversing the trial court’s findings, saying that
“Balancing all the facts in light of the four-part test in Ramirez leads us to conclude that a reasonable person in Perez’s situation would not have believed himself to be in custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing Perez’s confession and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.”
Interestingly, the decision makes no mention of the Ross decision, which leads me to believe that Perez was written before the Ross decision came out. Nonetheless, while not as involved as Casey Anthony’s case, it does provide some favorable direction if Judge Perry wanted to find in favor of the state.
On the other hand, I am not sure it is favorable enough to overcome Ross…
37 responses to “A Favorable Appellate Case for the State?”
but how can one reasonably reason that KC is a measure of a reasonable person? Does she even think she is in custody now? [snark]
I think the issue would require a hearing!!
Sorry, couldn’t resist!!
Thanks, always good to read you.
Thank you Mr. Hornsby for writing this post. I have been really torn on this issue. Like many, I didn’t even know they cuffed her at the house. I only knew about the Universal interview that was in dispute. It will be very interesting to see how Judge Perry rules on this issue.
How could LE investigate a missing child without asking questions? KC had no need to hear Miranda rights when LE was simply asking her what happened.
I heard testimony yesterday that Cindy asked LE not to leave until KC told them where Caylee was… she wasn’t telling anyone… Cindy wanted KC threatened with arrest for stealing the car as a ploy to get KC to tell where Caylee was. KC kept insisting that Caylee was fine, she was with the nanny. It was Cindy that wanted KC handcuffed. KC was released shortly after so I don’t see how Baez can present this as her being in ‘custody’. He would like to so he cold have statements thrown out.
It may have been Cindy who wanted Casey handcuffed, but it was law enforcement who actually handcuffed her. And it is law enforcement’s actions that are being analyzed, not Cindy’s.
R Hornsby said
“It may have been Cindy who wanted Casey handcuffed, but it was law enforcement who actually handcuffed her. And it is law enforcement’s actions that are being analyzed, not Cindy’s.”
********
Yep thanks Mr H, I understand but as it relates to what went on at the house only, would the Judge be allowed to take into consideration the BELIEF of the police officer who did the cuffing, that he was doing so in relation to theft charges her mother apparently wished to pursue. The act of handcuffing her was not in relation to the charges that actually followed. i.e. Child neglect and lying to LE. Are LE cut any slack given the information the family were giving out that night.
After the tour to the old folks home and the vacant apartment, Mellich returned her to her own home just before 7 am, where she remained for at least five hours without any police presence. She had no restrictions placed on her by LE and could have taken off any time within those 5 hours, Cindy permitting. lol
TIA
LOL, sorry, confused…I just read your post and realize that I made many of the same points in a later posting of my own – right down to Sindy being the only one who possibly had KC “under custody” that night.
Guess the facts are the facts, eh? 🙂
but the only probable cause to effect an arrest at that point in time, went to Cindy’s claims of stolen money/fraudulent use of credit cards – she provided receipts/paperwork to prove the same.
Despite that Jose wants us to surrender to the idea that if KC was in handcuffs that evening, it MUST have been related to a missing Caylee – sort of in the same vein as Cindy’s claim, “if there’s a dog, there must be a nanny,” – it seems clear that had nothing to do with it. There was even some question at that time as to the true nature of the call, what with KC apparently having tried to convince the sergeant that everything was a ok, just a domestic dispute.
She was cuffed for 3 or 4 minutes. She wasn’t questioned during that time, (IIRC) and, if when the cuffs came off she was told that she was free to go – no harm no foul?
This girl did notthing but LIED!!!!!!!!!!! There was a 2yr. old BABY killed because of her and her parents are lieing to defend her. This is one SICK BUNCH. I have 3 grown children and 7 Beautiful Grandchildren. If one of my children ever did this, it would be a “Cold Day in Hell” before I defend them. This kind of Murder should have NO Justice.
This is an interesting dilemma because it was obvious to LE that Casey seemed to be withholding Caylee from Cindy due to a family dispute. They were desperately trying to resolve a ‘kidnapping’ case because those first few hours are so crucial … even though in reality this was 31 days. The tactics of LE were initially focused on obtaining information to locate Caylee but as more and more Casey lies were debunked it evolved from ‘unusual’ to ‘suspicious’.
I think the challenge is deciding at what point did LE change their stance from seeking Caylee to investigating Casey and did Casey feel she was in custody or free to go. The inevitable conclusion to all of the lies was that Casey had done something else why not cooperate and provide verifiable details?
As we all know, Casey is very cold and defiant and even stuck to her bold face lies despite repeated challenge … Casey stated that she was ultimately arrested on a ……. whim. Not the actions of someone who felt pressured by anyone.
I re-read the Universal interview today…she’s a cool cookie – one of the last things that Yuri said to her was: “I can’t think of anything else that I can say that…that’s gonna convince you on how to do the right
thing…” and then he left her with detective Wells.
She not only had them (Yuri and John Allen) stumped at that point in time, she had Yuri ADMITTING TO HER that he was stumped….I think she exhausted them – hardly a shrinking violet who was cowering in fear from these “big adult males” as Mason likes to refer to them in this regard.
I think that at all relevant times during that night and early morning, KC was a “witness” who put herself out as a “willingly participant” in the search for Caylee.
I don’t think for one second that she ever felt intimidated by Yuri or John Allen at Universal and I also believe that had she not left them speechless and disbelieving with her detached, tenacity and chutzpah and they instead had continued on with the interview, she would have eventually tired of the them, the game, and called a cab to come pick her up and take her home – maybe stop by Fusion for a drink!!!!
Regardless of any of that though, would an appellate court find differently?…I think there’s a good probability they may…in which case, and in the grand scheme of things, using these statements would not be worth the fruit they bear. There’s other trees to be picked for the same info anyways!!
It’s true M.ed.; Casey had been cuffed for the car/creditcard, and at Cindy’s request to press charges. The missing child issue hadn’t really manifest itself yet. So, that’s certainly something to consider.
I’m actually very concerned about these motions, though the “agent of the state” to a lesser extent. The fact that Casey could get off, or have crucial evidence against her thrown out… As much as I think the police had every reason to go after her so intensely, I wish they been more conservative in their approach. Furthermore, I wish they’d kept their dealings and conversations with the Anthony family on a “need to know” basis. LE made themselves vulnerable to attack by these infuriating, manipulative parents.
microfiche said: LE made themselves vulnerable to attack by these infuriating, manipulative parents.
—————–
Hindsight is golden isn’t it? lol.
George can sit in the court gallery and shake his head and roll his eyes all day long as Yuri and John Allen testify that he did nothing at their behest, but it won’t make to go away, recording after recording replete with statements to him, from the two, to the tune of: “It’s all about what KC wants. KC has to request this, that or the other thing…What does KC want?”….up, down, backwards and sideways…they were clear on what they could and COULDN’T do.
The issue of a missing child came about in the third 911 call, so indeed, the issue was brought up immediately….and I’m certain it was the first topic of conversation once the first officer arrived on the scene.
Richard if you were the Judge what would you do? I hope some of it comes in, if not all. I do have a question though. The Defense has also asked the Judge to strike the A’s statements about what Casey told them. What about Tony L. she sent him text messages. Plus IIRC she sent out a mass text message to all her friends about the nanny taking Caylee. Will those statements come in? My concern is the Defense and Casey want to use soddi, when it is obvious there was no other dude or nanny.
Right again Mr.Ed,; Casey was totally uncompelled by the detectives, and their questions – just stuck to her guns without compunction.
And it’s also true that the the jury will be able come to all the same conclusions from the information provided by anyone else who spoke to Casey during those 31 days.
Richard, thanks for addressing this. Geez, I see the argument for both sides, but it’s really sad that the Victim becomes lost in the “legal arguments, it seemed Caylee, the victim, had no rights, only KC had rights.” I agree with your last paragraph, “there are other trees to be picked for the same information!”
The 911 call which will be admitted into trial, introduces Zanny as KC said Caylee with her & she was conducting her own investigation. This is a small concession, imo, the Defense will not be able to overcome the 31 days missing/dead, that KC NEVER reported Caylee missing, Cindy did. The bumping & grinding at Fushion with her Bella Vita tattoo while conducting her own investigation can’t be explained away by Baez or Mason, KC would have to take the stand & my bet is hell would freeze over first!
What will they do Richard, try to explain it away in “closing?”
Mr. Hornsby, I have a question……….What do you think about what the Anthonys are maintaining (at the bidding of the defense) that they were “Agents Of The State” (or really better put agents of law enforcement)? This setting up of the visit to get around Baez thing, and how they worked so closely with law enforcement (allegedly to set Casey up) does not line up with what Cindy was spewing at the time, but this conspiracy theory as a whole bothers me. Should it?
I think they are afraid their daughter might be convicted and possibly receive the death penalty. So in many ways, I completely understand the adversarial nature they have adopted against law enforcement.
Thanks! I do understand that. Will it be a real issue with the case?
If I were handcuffed, even if only for a few minutes, even if I was told it was only for the officers and mine’s safety, I would still feel like I was in custody. Police officers are authoritive figures, the back of a police car is a small jail, handcuffs are tight. One would likely feel as though they were in custody. IMO
Why would an officer handcuff you after 2 hours other than to scare the daylights out of you and make you feel like your in custody to get more information out of you?
Cuz Cindy Anthony asked him to.
Cindy decided at a point during the evening that she wanted to press theft charges. It seems Cindy felt the need to put pressure on her daughter as to her grandchild’s whereabouts.
That came out at the hearing.
I can only refer to post at 2:22. I am not a lawyer.
HHJP wanted to know as well why she was put in cuffs, and there is nothing to support the theory that it was some sort of intimidation tactic employed, endorsed or otherwise concocted by LE to get more “information out of her”. That was Sindy’s game.
On the contrary, the officer’s undisputed testimony, now a matter of record, was that he did so because her mother wanted to press charges for theft/unauthorized use of credit cards. Sindy showed him documentation to back her claim; the officer was apparently satisfied that he had probable cause to place KC under arrest. He put her in handcuffs, walked her out of the house to his cruiser, and almost immediately thereafter he took her out of the cuffs by order of his supervisor. KC walked back into the house under her own steam and was from then on, through the rest of the night, free to come and go as she pleased – or as Sindy would allow 🙂
Mason merely speculated that she was in cuffs for reasons other than which the officer testified.
I can only refer to post at 2:22. I am not a lawyer
Could it be the grandmother was worried, and really wanted to get Casey to answer the question of WHERE IS CAYLEE. So she whinned to the officer to arrest her on charges of credit card theft and car theft just to hold her so she couldn’t run off to Tony’s or something, in other words leave the house, and still not tell Cindy where Caylee was. Sounds reasonable to me.
Law Enforcement constantly use manipulating techniques to get info from people…I believe they did use those to techniques very early in the investigation to obtain information. For them to say they only considered Casey “the mother of a missing child” after hearing what Cindy said, is complete BS! I believe they DID at that time believe Casey was a suspect and therefore handcuffed her.
With all due respect…As I listened to your suggested recording….Cindy clearly states that Law Enforcement suggested to her that the only way they could hold Casey was if Cindy made a complaint agaist Casey for theft. As I said….Law Enforcement will use any tactics available to get the answers THEY want..including arresting her for something else! I believe she was being placed under arrest at that time!
Exactly, Confused….you hit the nail right on the head. The investigation HAD, by the time Casey was handcuffed, moved onto a missing child investigation, and Cindy was asking the officers to cuff Casey, using whatever reason they could (ie-stolen car and credit cards), so that Casey would not leave and would give them inforamation about Caylee. Nevertheless, if Cindy had told the officer to climb onto the roof and urinate into the neighbor’s pool, who is ultimately responsible if the officer does this? Cindy or the officer? It was the obligation of the officer to Mirandize Casey regardless of why he cuffed her. If he did the cuffing, he needed to be reading her her Miranda rights.
I wasn’t aware that Miranda warnings have to be given similtaneously to handcuffing someone. And as far as we know, Casey was not questioned about her mother’s theft allegations in the car. And I think its safe to assume had an interrogation ever started in the car about her missing daughter, Baez would have brought that up during the hearing.
Don’t Police officers have the authority /discretion to transport someone to a police station FOR questioning?
My understanding of Miranda is, that its use as a warning has to occur PRIOR to questioning/interrogation, not the act of being taken into custody.
According to witnesses, she was either handcuffed for 5 minutes for theft allegations (deputy) or “seemed like a very long time” (Cindy) or 30 minutes to an hour. (George, who wrongly claimed Sgt Hosey did the cuffing).
Obviously Casey and her lawyers (as is their right) declined to let Casey give her version of events. So I guess it will depend largely on WHO Judge Perry feels was being the most honest during the hearing. Wish I had an appropriate smiley about now.
Note, I am talking exclusively about what transpired at the house.
I do think Mellich should have mirandized her prior to questioning her at Universal. Because that was clearly confontational and she was now most definitely a suspect given her previous information about where the nanny lived and her job and job issued phone had now been established as total and utter BS. But Mason’s motion asserts that she was “confronted” at the house and in a “virtual and continual” state of custody from the handcuffing incident onwards. The facts do not support that claim imho.
Confused said: According to witnesses, she was either handcuffed for 5 minutes for theft allegations (deputy) or “seemed like a very long time” (Cindy) or 30 minutes to an hour. (George, who wrongly claimed Sgt Hosey did the cuffing).
LMAO!! Yep. Wonder who will have the most credence with this judge?
He didn’t have any such obligation. A person can be arrested/handcuffed WITHOUT being read miranda.
I don’t think it will be hard for the judge to believe Officer Eberlins version of events. To me, he seemed quite sincere and credible on the stand. But, we will see 🙂
M.Ed.Jai says:
March 6, 2011 at 10:47 am
He didn’t have any such obligation. A person can be arrested/handcuffed WITHOUT being read miranda.
**
Yep and it seems an Officer is allowed to cuff someone / temporarily detain them whilst making enquiries/investigating a matter. Judge Perry has a Florida case he can rely on for that premis. FL State v Reynolds.
That said. I think Perry will grant the motion as it relates to the questioning at Universal.
He’s a sharp man. Cindy and George were not credible witnesses imo. lol So I predict her written statement and the intitial interview with Mellich at the house will come in at trial.
And ultimately this girl imho is going to prison for a very long time.
If the State loses this motion what exactly will not be able to be brought into testimony?
I had forgotten about Casey trying to send LE away, telling Sgt. Hosey that “Caylee was fine and mom and dad were threatening to take caylee from her, that it was just a domestic dispute” so i give kudo’s to baez for refreshing us on that fact. unfortunately for Caylee that is all casey ever dealt with was threats. never any consequences and it appears the parents are willing to enable her as they always have even if it means forsaking their beautiful helpless little grandaughter whom they couldn’t be bothered to do a well child call for in those 31 days (had they done it early on and reported the car stolen then, there wouldn’t have been any haggling with the tow yard) but sindy was still trying too hard to be caseys bestie rather than parent, even to the point of perjuring themselves. jmho
I have read the interview transcript of Casey and the detectives at Universal countless times, and I remember them saying to her that she is free to walk out at any time. She can be heard agreeing with that. I’m hopeful the judge rejects the argument and allows her statements in the trial.
Mr.Hornsby,
Can the public safety exception to the Miranda rule be used in the case of a missing child?. I know it is used for terrorism, but would trying to locate an endangered child make this exception necessary and legal?.