0

Judge rules against parents interview use in child murder trial

CONYERS -- A judge told prosecutors Tuesday the interview of William Stewart will be suppressed in his murder trial in the 2010 death of his 5-month old son because it were done improperly. [*]

Assistant District Attorney Debra Sullivan sought to include the interview during the Stewart's trial, which is set to begin in March and he is a co-defendant with his wife, Madea Stewart.

An interview was conducted after a Rockdale County Sheriff's Office investigator asked the Stewarts at Rockdale Medical Center to come in for questions on July 28, 2010, as their son, James, was being transported to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston.

Deputies responded to a call of a child not breathing at the Stewarts' Morris Drive home that afternoon in 2010. Deputies performed CPR on James, who was taken to RMC and later transferred to Egleston, where he died.

Investigators were called by the hospital as a routine procedure in all cases involving a child not breathing. A CT scan at RMC showed James had suffered previous fractures from when he was at least 2 months old, Sullivan said.

The interviews are among several the court was being asked to consider for Jackson-Denno hearings to determine whether the information provided was voluntarily given to investigators.

William Stewart's attorney, Lee Sexton, objected to his interview being introduced because Stewart believed he had no choice but to obey RCSO Investigator Amanda Pilgrim's request for the interview. He said the couple also believed a patrol car followed them as they drove to the Sheriff's Office.

Rockdale County Superior Court Judge Sidney Nation said he had problems allowing the interviews to be used as evidence and ruled them not to be admissible for the trial.

Pilgrim said she was not dressed in her uniform and that the Stewarts had the option to say no. She testified she told the Stewarts the interviews would be "just long enough" for them to go to Egleston.

The interviews lasted four hours total and the Stewarts were interviewed separately. Sexton said his client believed he could not leave. Pilgrim said the doors were not locked and the couple was free to leave at any time.

"What was your definition of 'just long enough' when you asked to talk to them?" Nation asked Pilgrim. "Here are parents going to the hospital to be with their child and you intervened and stopped them from going."

Nation added that he found it difficult to believe anyone would say no to a police officer's request and asked why the investigators did not explain their Miranda rights to the Stewarts.

Pilgrim said the interviews were exploratory in nature to find out what happened to the child that day and not meant to lead toward an arrest.

"Do you think there is a reasonable person out there who can get up and leave after they had been told by the police 'I need to go?'" Nation added. "You didn't know what was going on, you were conducting an investigation to find out what happened and asking questions concerning a serious, serious matter and you didn't Miranda them? Why don't you read the Miranda rights in all cases to be sure?"

Nation ended the hearing by saying, "You lose."

Clarification, Feb. 1, 2012: This story was revised. The story should have reported the court ruled against using only William Stewart's interview by investigators. Madea Stewart's interview is allowed because she agreed to speak with investigators. The Citizen regrets the error. Return to the revised paragraph here [*].

Comments

CitizenPat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

It's no small thing; had the officer followed proper procedure and Mirandized the couple (even insisting it was standard procedure to do so) then all information obtained would be admissable. It is always considered advisable to Miranda a witness if there is any chance they may be the guilty party... does this investigator expect anyone to believe that she didn't think the parents were guilty?? This reflects poorly on the whole department. Be professional! Jeff and Jackie are are running better departments than this reflects!

0

wonderwhy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I was predjudiced when first being told of this the other day. Now that I have heard and read the actual there is nothing that can be said other than drop the arrogance. Long time old rule preached in law enforcement academy basics . . . . . just as securing a potential scene. Contaminated scenes, contaminated interviews all go in the trash.

0

Staci_Trebarwith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

But if you Mirandize them, they don't talk! See how that works? ;)

0

wonderwhy 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Been there, done that . . . That's the chance one takes.

0

CitizenPat 3 months, 2 weeks ago

It doesn't matter if they never stop talking; if you can't use what they say, what's the point? Rather if every person is Mirandized prior to interview (even non-suspects) then everything said is fair game in court.

0

Sign in to comment