Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


As oral and written confession to the murder of Adrianne Jones should
not be admissible at his trial in July, claiming that their client was
not properly read his rights. 

Today's arguments focused on whether Graham was read the proper Miranda
rights and the right time. Investigators first began questioning Graham
about Jones' murder in early September 1996, when he had just started at
the Air Force Academy in Colorado. Graham was first read his rights and
questioned by Air Force officials according to military law. Miranda
Rights in military law and Texas state law are very similar but have one
key difference: military Miranda Rights say that a person has a right to
have a lawyer present during a police interview while Texas law says
that a suspect may have a lawyer present before and during an interview.
Graham's lawyers claim that technicality (the fact that under military
law, Graham could not have an attorney present before his interview, a
direct clash with state law) shows that his confession was obtained    
illegally and should be admitted as evidence into his trial. 

In addition, the defense claimed Graham's confession was coerced by the
over-persistence and deception of investigators. Initially, Graham
apparently refused to give a statement to investigators and repeatedly
asked for legal counsel. (Prosecutors claim that Graham did not ask for
a lawyer, but rather he kept asking them, "If I ask for a lawyer, you
will provide me with one, right?" According to investigators, they asked
Graham if he wanted a lawyer, and he felt he did not need one at that
time.) Nevertheless, the defense argued, Graham was held against his
will for hours until investigators allegedly forced the confession out
of him with their persistence and a bit of trickery. 

Prosecutors countered the defense's arguments by saying that at the time
of his interview, Graham was not under arrest and therefore did not even
need to have his rights read to him. But, the prosecution noted, Air
Force officials read Graham his rights twice during a 12-hour period.
(The first Miranda reading came on Sept. 4, before his lie detector test
the next day. The next Miranda reading came after Graham allegedly
confessed on the evening of Sept. 5.) Regarding the allegations of
coercion, prosecutors brought Air Force officials to the stand who
testified that Graham volunteered certain aspects of his confession to
them. These officials testified that Graham even played a game with them
and asked them to guess what kind of weight he used to bash Jones'    
skull in. One Air Force official admitted that there was some deception
used during Graham's interrogation. At one point, the official
suggested, there was a "staged" shouting match between a frustrated Air
Force investigator and Grand Prairie detective. During this
"altercation," the official said she went over to Graham. In what she
admitted was an "insincere" gesture, the official patted Graham on the
hand as if to say that it was okay for him to talk to the investigators
and make his confession. Prosecutors argued that this kind of tactic was
not illegal during the course of a criminal investigation. 

Before the proceedings began today, Diane Zamora's mother appeared in
court and was going to listen to the hearing. But prosecutors barred her
from the court, saying that they planned to call her as a witness at
Graham's trial. In Texas, potential witnesses cannot listen to other
witnesses' testimony, and this law prevented Zamora's mother from
sitting in at her daughter's trial. David Graham is expected to testify
when his pretrial hearings resume tomorrow. 
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's

Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues

Reply via email to