The Miranda Rights of Sean Phillips and Why He Deserves a New Trial

[XLFD]

Two years ago today, Sean Phillips was taken into custody just after Ludington Police Officer Tony Kuster and Mason County Sergeant Jody Hartley found Baby clothes in Sean Phillips' pocket, and his infant daughter unaccounted for, as explained in these two news releases based on testimony they gave at Phillips' eventual trial:

"After they found the baby clothes, car seat and diaper bag, Kuster – realizing now the baby was missing, not merely in disputed custody -- requested help from Mason County Sheriff's detectives. They had already handcuffed Phillips and placed him in custody immediately after Hartley found the baby clothes in his pocket."

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/04/ludington_poli...

"Also testifying Friday morning was Mason County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jody Hartley. Hartley was one of two officers who confronted Phillips around 4 p.m. June 29 at his parents’ home on Millerton Road.

Hartley corroborated Ludington Police Officer Tony Kuster’s account of finding the baby’s clothes in the cargo pocket of Phillips’ khaki shorts, then – after handcuffing Phillips and placing him in a patrol car – finding a baby’s carseat and a diaper bag in the trunk of Phillips’ car."

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/04/baby_kate_tria...

Sean Phillips was handcuffed and placed in custody in a patrol car, and taken to an interrogation room at the MCSO.  At the very beginning of the interrogation video, Sergeant Jody Hartley takes his phone and wallet (the following photos are stills from that interrogation):

 

 

He gets a glass of water about a quarter of an hour later, then Detective Tom Posma enters the picture about an hour after that:

 

 

For the first several minutes, Posma asks what would be called biographical information necessary to complete an arrest report, he begins some fishing at about 19:07 in, asking how he feels about deploying, custodial arrangements, relationships with Ariel, and paternity issues, among other small talk of a friendly nature.  At 19:13, he asks about the situation with him, Ariel and Katherine, and what is Ariel claiming with regard to Katherine.  At 19:18, Posma asks Sean to go through what happened during his day that day.  "Be as descriptive as possible."  Sean volunteers the info, Posma does some cuing, such as 'what happens when you get to Ariel's?', 'what time did you get home?', 'so she gets out and takes kathy', 'did she put Katherine back in the car?', 'where was Katherine in the car?', 'was she in the baby seat?', 'when you dropped Ariel off the last time, she took Katherine with her?' 

 

 

After all this, he goes out under the pretense of making calls, and when he comes back, he reads Sean his 'Miranda' rights, and has him sign the papers saying that he understands these.

 

 

A bit later,Detective Posma starts off affable and then later into insinuating that Phillips has taken Baby Kate and did something with her and explains the gravity of the situation, Phillips invokes his full rights. 

 

 

Now let's take a look at what a legal site says, and follow that up with a seasoned policeman's understanding of the law, which address the issues inherent in this case concerning Miranda rights. 

When the Miranda Warning Is Required

It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read them their Miranda rights if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.

Consequences of Failure to Provide Miranda Warning

Without a Miranda warning, nothing a person says in response to a custodial questioning can be used as evidence against the person at his or her trial. In addition, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police find evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-w...

Okay, that attorney, and others you may find, are pretty clear about the Miranda rights and what occurs when you violate them, but let's hear a little from the people that deal with the application of the law, a seasoned veteran policeman interviewer that knows what he's supposed to do:

"Miranda warnings are triggered by a simple formula:

Custody + Interrogation = The requirement for Miranda warnings.

Custody:  A person who is arrested is in custody, but some suspects are in custody even though they have not been arrested. A person is obviously in custody if he or she has been told, "You're under arrest." Even without being so advised, a person is also in custody if he or she is handcuffed, or secured in the cage of a patrol car, or being confronted by officers with firearms pointed at him or her, or kept in a police station and not being allowed to depart at will.

Interrogation: defined in the Miranda decision as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way."

There is a "routine booking questions" exception to Miranda. Questions designed to obtain biographical information necessary to complete an arrest report are not subject to Miranda warnings.

As long as no custodial interrogation occurred, an officer could complete an arrest and never advise the suspect of rights per Miranda. To preserve the possibility of obtaining a suspect's volunteered statements, and to permit the prosecutor to impeach a testifying defendant with evidence of his inexplicable pre-Miranda silence, officers should not prematurely give warnings but should wait to do so until commencing custodial interrogation."

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2010/05/miranda-wa...

 

The questions Detective Posma was asking Sean Phillips starting at least at the time where Posma asked him to relate the day's events should have been asked after the Miranda warnings were read, declared understood, and signed.  Posma not only asked for the day's timeline, but asked a whole lot of things about Sean Phillips' actions, and about the other two principals in the drama, Ariel and Baby Kate, that had nothing to do with routine police biographical questions. 

 

By Miranda, all the questions he asked before the warnings were given to Sean should have been inadmissible in court, although he could have conceivably asked the same line of questions after the warning, and if answered, could use the post-Miranda interview.  But after the warnings, Posma did most of the talking, using a lot of the material he had found out previously in his pre-Miranda part of the interview.  Sean doesn't really admit to much thereafter, which presented a problem to the prosecution. 

 

However, for 40 minutes (minus a break), Posma is asking non-biographical questions in an interrogation, and has Sean in custody, meaning Miranda warnings need to be given if those statements/answers are to be used in court eventually.  This part of the interview, by Miranda, should have been inadmissible in court. 

But it was played in full in front of the jury, and did it make a difference?  It sure did, as in this interview after the verdict with Jury Foreman Jacob Lokers, where he says it was one of the five pieces of evidence which weighed heavily against Sean in reaching the verdict: 

"5. Three copies of the transcript of Sean’s June 29 interview with Mason County Sheriff’s Office Det. Tom Posma for some of the jurors. The interview was important in part because in it Sean admitted he had Kate in the car earlier that afternoon, which set up the start of the timeline and showed the baby’s mother Ariel’s whereabouts but not Sean’s." 

He goes on to describe various scenarios that the jury thought may have happened, some derivative of the pre-Miranda testimony from Sean Phillips.  Judge Cooper at sentencing explains that part of his strictness in sentencing may have hinged on Sean's invoking his right to remain silent and not say anything about what the judge called "very strong circumstantial evidence".  But others might call it normal stuff a baby's dad may have in his car or person. 

The judge may insinuate something diabolical in Sean having inside-out baby clothes in the back pocket of his pants, but could he not also insinuate the lack of guilt because between the time Sean arrived home then made the call to the police, and they arrived 50 minutes later, he had left them in his pants-- while hiding fireworks away?  

 

The jury and judge processed the pre-Miranda data on the videotape played in front of all.  Analyzed it, kept the knowledge presented at some level of their consciousness in making their final decisions on how to dispense justice to Sean Phillips.  But none of the people present, not Judge Cooper, Prosecutor Spaniola, the concatenation of FBI agents and police officers of all levels, and even the person out for the best interests of Sean Phillips, Defense Attorney Annette Smedley, recognized that the 40 minute gap between the 'real' interrogation starting and the Miranda warning being given should not have been played in court in front of the jury, nor should anything that came out of it, be claimed to Sean unless it came out again after that warning. 

 

It could and should be legally recognized that Sean Phillips was found guilty and sentenced using information that should have been inadmissible.  A mistrial should have been declared, and now that the wrong has been exposed, a new trial should be convened that respects the Fifth Amendment and  Miranda Rights of Sean Phillips. 

[Willy]

Another fine article. I think you are correct in your conclusion that he should have received a Miranda warning before he was questioned. This seems to be a good reason to appeal, also, I'm curious why the stamp date on the photos is 2001.

[XLFD]

Then offer a refutation, EyE; and if it's legitimate I'll consider changing my position.  I'd love to hear one that abides by established law. 

Relying on our authorities to preserve the rights of the accused around here, has not been known as one of our County's strong points.  If you think the local authorities did the proper procedures in Burns v. Sailor or in McAdam v. Warmuskerken, et. al. then I may just have some swampland with your name on it. 

The Rotta v. Shay lawsuit is also instructive, though the plaintiff didn't get physically assaulted, his rights were assaulted in a way that any legal intern should recognize was unlawful.

[Willy]

I'm no expert but from what I have read, X accurately describes the Miranda warning situation so I agree with his reasoning. As far as Sean Phillips attorney is concerned, it wouldn't be the first time a legal expert fell down on the job. It's not up to the Judge, police or prosecutor to point out the fact that Sean was not read his "rights" prior to being interrogated. It's the defendant's obligation to make that point at pre trial hearings.

[XLFD]

Precisely, and if my brushes with the local authorities are anything like hers in trials, they are terrible at discovery.  I wouldn't be surprised if she was able to review it but once before she went to trial and it's hard to catch unless you're looking for it.  I missed it, in listening to it the first time, but it seems to be definitely there.

[XLFD]

For some reason, they are ten years backward at the Mason County Sheriff's Department, that's why you'll see Posma wearing one of those yellow "Livestrong" wristbands, and humming Creed songs during the interrogation.   

[masonco]

That is how they do it in Mason County. If a person is not a true cruiminal they even get them to sign a statement and they dont understand what they are signing...just that by signing they get to go home.

[Jane]

My daughter is 12, and ever since she was about 5 years old  I have been nagging her relentlessly every chance it relates to a tv show we watch or any other thing that comes up in life, probably monthly at a minimum about never talking to police without a parent or a lawyer present. Ask if your under arrest, if not you ARE free to leave, walk out the door if they try to stop you ask for a lawyer, ask for a parent  then shut up! until a parent or lawyer arrives! NO SMALL TALK!

[XLFD]

Good for you, I'm probably a little lax on those 'teaching moments' myself.  But a good rule of thumb is that when police start asking you questions about yourself or your actions, ask them questions right back, like the one Jane mentions.  Do it respectfully, but be firm.  Too many of them will have you forfeit your rights in their presence.

[Willy]

This is a two edged sword. Having children respect the law but also to be aware of it's abuses.

[Willy]

Eye

"It is common sense, decency, and wisdom." Meaning what?

[Willy]

Eye

You make a comment and someone asks you what the meaning of that comment was and you come back with another ambiguous statement and you wonder why some folks have a hard time understanding what you are talking about and how it relates to the topic. Again how does your statement "It is common sense, decency, and wisdom." relative to the discussion.

[XLFD]

Knowing one's rights and asserting them clearly should be a sign to the police that you do not fear them, and respect their duty to not only uphold the law, but also uphold their oath to defend everyone's Constitutional rights. 

As for believing a young person can apply common sense and wisdom properly by assuming that the officer they are interacting with is a 'good cop'... I just don't get it.  Obviously, if they are responding to your call for help or you witnessed a crime/criminal and wish to report it, you should give them all pertinent data.   

If they seem to be looking at you as a suspect, guilty or not, clam up until you can get help from an advocate.  If they don't respect that right to do so, you know you are not dealing with a 'good cop' in the first place. 

Also, I would suggest all young people with cell phones and other recording equipment to record their encounters with police whenever they begin to feel uncomfortable.  Again, the officer's reaction to your doing so should indicate a little about their character.