WEBVTT 2 00:00:05.521 --> 00:00:10.959 A WARRANT AND THOSE ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE TO FOREGO THE WARRANT 3 00:00:10.959 --> 00:00:21.445 REQUIREMENT. WE KNOW THEREP THERE'S A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF NOT TELLING PERSON IN THE 4 00:00:21.445 --> 00:00:28.044 INTERROGATION ROOM. WE SEE THAT IN THIS CASE. HOW THE INTERROGATION UN-FOLDED WAS A 5 00:00:28.044 --> 00:00:33.572 DIRECT RESULT OF DEFENDANT'S IGNORANCE OF THE CHARGES. HE WAS PICKED UP AT HIS PAROLE 6 00:00:33.572 --> 00:00:39.953 OFFICE, SO THEREFORE IT'S CREATING AN IMPRESSION THIS WAS SOMETHING ASSOCIATED WITH PAROLE. 7 00:00:39.953 --> 00:00:48.104 HE'S BROUGHT TO THE ASBURY PARK POLICE STATION. HE DOES ASK TWICE WHY AM I BEING ASKED. 8 00:00:48.104 --> 00:00:54.428 HE IS TOLD WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE DETAILS WHEN WE GET TO THE STATION AND THEN ON 9 00:00:54.428 --> 00:01:00.527 THE RECORDING HE SAYS I'M YOU WANT ARREST, RIGHT, AND HE SAYS, YES, WE'LL GET TO THE DETAILS 10 00:01:00.527 --> 00:01:06.814 LATER ON. THEY DON'T GET TO THE DETAILS UNTIL ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE INTERROGATION 11 00:01:06.814 --> 00:01:12.203 BECAUSE THE FIRST PART OF THE INTERROGATION IS ABOUT PAROLE AND HIS LIFE. THESE IN-KNOCK 12 00:01:12.203 --> 00:01:18.056 KWLUS DETAILS THAT THEY THEN USE LATER AT THE LATTER HALF TO CHALLENGE HIS DENIALS ABOUT 13 00:01:18.056 --> 00:01:23.904 WHERE HE'S BEEN AND WHO HE KNOWS AND HIS BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SHOOTING. SO THIS 14 00:01:23.904 --> 00:01:30.202 INTERROGATION COULD HAVE ONLY UN-FOLDED THIS WAY BECAUSE HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE CHARGES. 15 00:01:30.202 --> 00:01:34.977 AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING BAD FAITH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THE POLICE 16 00:01:34.977 --> 00:01:40.797 OFFICERS IN THIS CASE HAD MORE THAN AMPLE CAUSE -- PROBABLE CAUSE TO FILE A COMPLAINT WARRANT. 17 00:01:40.797 --> 00:01:47.638 WE KNOW WHEN THEY WENT TO THE HOSPITAL TO INTERVIEW THE WITNESS, THEY ALREADY HAD 18 00:01:47.638 --> 00:01:52.625 SUFFICIENT BASIS TO SUSPECT DEFENDANT IN THIS AND THEN THEY GET THIS UNEQUIVOCAL IDENTIFICATION 19 00:01:52.625 --> 00:01:57.307 FROM THE WITNESS AND WHAT FOLLOWS NEXT IS NOT APPLICATION FOR A COMPLAINT WARRANT, WHAT 20 00:01:57.307 --> 00:02:02.230 FOLLOWS NEXT IS TRYING TO TRACK HIM DOWN AT HIS PAROLE OFFICER'S OFFICE. AND I BELIEVE 21 00:02:02.230 --> 00:02:05.607 THERE WAS ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT TESTIFIED THAT ACTUALLY IT WAS DIFFICULT TO 22 00:02:05.607 --> 00:02:12.264 GET NOULTHS WITH HIS PAROLE OFFICER POOR. SO THIS WAS CLEARLY AN ATTEMPT TO 23 00:02:12.264 --> 00:02:17.490 FIND HIM IN A PUBLIC PLACE, TO ARREST HIM. AND THAT DECISION LED TO HIS COMPLETE IGNORANCE 24 00:02:17.490 --> 00:02:24.346 AND THAT HAD AN IMPACT ON HOW THIS INTERROGATION UN-FOLDED. I THINK HAD HE KNOWN AT 25 00:02:24.346 --> 00:02:28.286 THE OUTSET THAT THIS WAS FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HIDE THE 26 00:02:28.286 --> 00:02:31.905 BALL UNTIL WAY INTO THE INTERROGATION. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MS. WATSON, WHEN 27 00:02:31.905 --> 00:02:36.832 WE LEFT OFF, YOU HAD POINT TO DO THE LIMITS IN THE OPINION AND THE FOOTNOTES ABOUT THE 28 00:02:36.832 --> 00:02:43.928 BREATH OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S RULING WRIT SAYS IT WOULD APPLY TO CASES INVESTIGATION 29 00:02:43.928 --> 00:02:49.018 BUT NOT A SITUATION FOR EXAMPLE WHERE AN OFFICER ACTUALLY OBSERVES A CRIME AND THEN MAKES 30 00:02:49.018 --> 00:02:59.991 AN ARREST. WHAT'S THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THAT DISTINCTION? IN BOTH CASES, AN OFFICER 31 00:02:59.991 --> 00:03:08.468 HAS PROBABLE CAUSE. IN ONE HE IS OR SHE HAS LITERALLY SEEN THE CRIME. WHY SHOULD A 32 00:03:08.468 --> 00:03:13.025 DEFENDANT ONLY BE ADVISED IN ONE CASE AND NOT THE OTHER? WAS THE PRINCIPLED REASON THERE? 33 00:03:13.025 --> 00:03:17.911 ROCHELLE WATSON: IN AN IDEAL WORLD A DEFENDANT WOULD ALWAYS BE ADVISED OF THE 34 00:03:17.911 --> 00:03:21.025 REASONS FOR HIS ARREST ONCE THE POLICE OFFICERS HAVE MADE A DECISION BECAUSE PRESUMABLY 35 00:03:21.025 --> 00:03:25.405 THEY DO KNOW THE CHARGES. I THINK THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S LIMITATION IS TO ADDRESS THE 36 00:03:25.405 --> 00:03:30.814 ISSUES ABOUT ADMINISTER RABLT. SO WE KNOW THAT AFTER AN INVESTIGATION THERE HAS JUST 37 00:03:30.814 --> 00:03:35.457 BEEN MORE TIME TO DELIBERATE. THERE'S PROBABLY BEEN CONFERENCING WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S 38 00:03:35.457 --> 00:03:40.565 OFFICE AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CAN BE MORE CONFIDENT IN THE CHARGES THAT THEY'RE 39 00:03:40.565 --> 00:03:49.709 TELLING THE DEFENDANT IN THE INTERROGATION ROOM. AND BECAUSE I AM MR. SIMS's COUNSEL 40 00:03:49.709 --> 00:03:55.592 I AM NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION's DECISION BUT BUT I DO THINK 41 00:03:55.592 --> 00:04:02.963 THERE IS SOME OVERLAPPING REASON THAT THE PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED -- CHIEF JUSTICE 42 00:04:02.963 --> 00:04:14.340 RABNER: SO WE KNOW THAT SOME INVESTIGATIONS MOVE AT A VERY RAPID PACE. SHOULD ADMINISTER 43 00:04:14.340 --> 00:04:18.863 RABLT FACTOR IN FOR THOSE AS WELL? ROCHELLE WATSON: I DO NOT THINK SO. THAT 44 00:04:18.863 --> 00:04:25.485 CAN'T BE THE PREVAILING CONCERN, ADMINISTER RABLT. THE CRITICAL CONCERN HERE IS WHETHER 45 00:04:25.485 --> 00:04:30.442 THE DEFENDANT HAS THE INFORMATION TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY. 46 00:04:30.442 --> 00:04:35.473 THIS IS JUST SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. I THINK IT'S ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO 47 00:04:35.473 --> 00:04:41.722 INCENTIVIZE A WARRANT, BECAUSE EVEN IF AN INVESTIGATION IS UN-FOLDING RAPIDLY, ONCE THE 48 00:04:41.722 --> 00:04:50.273 POLICE OFFICER HAS MADE THE PROBABLE CAUSE ASSESSMENT THAT THEY CAN ARREST THIS PERSON, 49 00:04:50.273 --> 00:04:56.841 THERE'S ALSO THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE APPLIED FOR A WARRANT AND THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO 50 00:04:56.841 --> 00:05:00.687 IS TO THE DREAMT OF THE DEFENDANT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: AS YOU WOULD SEE 51 00:05:00.687 --> 00:05:06.173 THIS RULE BEING APPLIED, SHOULD OFFICERS DELAY IN INTERVIEWING UNTIL THEY'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY 52 00:05:06.173 --> 00:05:09.556 TO SPEAK WITH A PROSECUTOR IN PLACES WHERE THAT'S REQUIRED? ROCHELLE WATSON: 53 00:05:09.556 --> 00:05:19.246 L I THINK IF IT'S FEASIBLE, THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER PRACTICE. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT 54 00:05:19.246 --> 00:05:23.849 THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE INTERROGATION, I ONLY PROVIDED THAT 55 00:05:23.849 --> 00:05:30.307 INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONFERRING BEFORE THERE IS 56 00:05:30.307 --> 00:05:36.452 AN INTERROGATION. AND THE RULE THAT REQUIRES THAT YOU REACH OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR AS SOON 57 00:05:36.452 --> 00:05:41.269 AS POSSIBLE AFTER THERE IS A WARRANTLESS ARREST, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HAPPENING BEFORE 58 00:05:41.269 --> 00:05:47.006 OR AFTER THE INTERROGATION. I THINK CONCEIVABLY A BETTER PRACTICE IS TO CONFER WITH THE 59 00:05:47.006 --> 00:05:51.893 PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE INTERROGATION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF 60 00:05:51.893 --> 00:05:57.479 THIS RULE. JUSTICE ALBIN: I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT YOUR PRINCIPLED POSITION, 61 00:05:57.479 --> 00:06:04.856 AS THE ACHIEVE JUSTICE WAS PROBING. A POLICE OFFICER SEES A HAND TO HAND TRANSACTION. 62 00:06:04.856 --> 00:06:15.365 ARRESTS A PERSON. AND NOW WANTS TO INTERROGATE THE PERSON. IF YOU'RE USING THE REED 63 00:06:15.365 --> 00:06:21.877 A.G.D. RATIONAL, IT'S CRITICAL INFORMATION. LIKE WHY HAVEN'T I BEEN ARRESTED. IS IT 64 00:06:21.877 --> 00:06:28.307 YOUR POSITION THAT, WELL, THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE IT WASN'T SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONSULT 65 00:06:28.307 --> 00:06:37.013 WITH THE PROSECUTOR OR TO GET A WARRANT? ARE YOU CARVING OUT THOSE CASES? ROCHELLE 66 00:06:37.013 --> 00:06:40.401 WATSON: WELL, THIS IS THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S DECISION. I THINK THE INFORMATION IS 67 00:06:40.401 --> 00:06:45.417 EQUALLY INDISPENSABLE TO EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY 68 00:06:45.417 --> 00:06:49.991 THE POLICE OFFICERS DO KNOW THE CRIMES BECAUSE THEY'VE MADE AN ARREST AND THEY'VE MADE 69 00:06:49.991 --> 00:06:55.569 AN ASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT WHEN IT'S AN INVESTIGATION -- WHEN 70 00:06:55.569 --> 00:07:00.592 IT'S AN ARREST FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION, THEN PERHAPS LIKE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE LITIGATION 71 00:07:00.592 --> 00:07:07.280 ABOUT SORT OF THE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANT IS TOLD AND THE CHARGES 72 00:07:07.280 --> 00:07:11.401 THAT ARE ULTIMATELY APPROVED. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: FROM A STANDPOINT OF 73 00:07:11.401 --> 00:07:17.452 WHAT THE RATIONAL UNDERLYING THIS RULE IS, I DON'T SEE THESE LIMITS HOLDING. I SEE THE 74 00:07:17.452 --> 00:07:24.684 BRIGHT LINE RULE IF THERE'S AN EXTENSION EXTENDING EVEN BEYOND, AND THAT'S WHY I'M 75 00:07:24.684 --> 00:07:28.297 ASKING YOU ABOUT THIS, TO TRY TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TRUE SCOPE OF THE RULE WOULD BE 76 00:07:28.297 --> 00:07:36.290 FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT. ROCHELLE WATSON: I AM NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPANSION. 77 00:07:36.290 --> 00:07:39.386 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: NOT TODAY. ROCHELLE WATSON: I'M NOT ASKING 78 00:07:39.386 --> 00:07:42.700 FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S DECISION BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A CASE THAT 79 00:07:42.700 --> 00:07:50.781 SUGGESTS THAT -- THAT PRESENTS THOSE FACTS. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE THAT WHEN POLICE 80 00:07:50.781 --> 00:07:57.222 HAVE ARRESTED BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE, THAT PERSON SHOULD ALSO BE ADVISED OF THE REASON 81 00:07:57.222 --> 00:08:02.118 FOR THE ARREST, BUT THERE ISN'T BRIEFING ON THAT AND WE HAVEN'T GONE BEYOND THOSE FACTS 82 00:08:02.118 --> 00:08:08.517 IN THIS CASE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: IS THERE -- YOU MENTIONED CRITICAL INFORMATION 83 00:08:08.517 --> 00:08:14.443 A NUMBER OF TIMES. THE CASES MENTION IT. JUSTICE ALBIN'S QUESTIONED BIT. ISN'T THE 84 00:08:14.443 --> 00:08:18.675 DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT IS CRITICAL INFORMATION TO A DEFENDANT A SUBJECTIVE QUESTION 85 00:08:18.675 --> 00:08:25.448 AND THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE TEST? ROCHELLE WATSON: NO. A.G.D. AND VINCENTY 86 00:08:25.448 --> 00:08:29.623 SAY IT'S OBJECTIVELY CRITICAL INFORMATION THAT THE CHARGES -- JUSTICE SOLOMON: 87 00:08:29.623 --> 00:08:35.847 OKAY. BUT THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT IS CRITICAL INFORMATION AS TO A DEFENDANT. FOR 88 00:08:35.847 --> 00:08:42.010 EXAMPLE, WE DON'T HAVE CHARGES YET. WE JUST HAVE IN THE MROFRZ MIND WHAT THE REASON OR 89 00:08:42.010 --> 00:08:48.223 RATIONAL FOR THE ARREST IS. THERE MAY BE OTHER CHARGES. WHAT IS OR IS NOT CRITICAL 90 00:08:48.223 --> 00:08:53.213 INFORMATION FOR THE DEFENDANT? IT'S GOING TO BE DETERMINED -- I PRESUME IT'S GOT TO BE 91 00:08:53.213 --> 00:08:58.359 DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS RARNG THAN A BRIGHT LINE, BECAUSE IF IT'S A BRIGHT 92 00:08:58.359 --> 00:09:02.231 LINE, WHETHER IT'S CRITICAL OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. ROCHELLE WATSON: IVENLG 93 00:09:02.231 --> 00:09:06.997 OUR CASE LAW ABOUT THE CRITICAL INFORMATION, SIMPLY WE'VE MADE A VALUE JUDGMENT THAT 94 00:09:06.997 --> 00:09:11.546 CERTAIN INFORMATION IS CRITICAL. IN REED FOR EXAMPLE THE INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ATTORNEY 95 00:09:11.546 --> 00:09:17.243 WAITING TO CONFER WITH YOU MAY BE MORE CRITICAL TO SOME DEFENDANTS THAN NOT. BUT ACROSS 96 00:09:17.243 --> 00:09:21.020 THE BOARD WE'VE JUST DETERMINED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS SO ESSENTIAL THAT WE'RE GOING 97 00:09:21.020 --> 00:09:25.397 TO DELIVER IT TO EVERY DEFENDANT AND WE DON'T MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT'S MORE 98 00:09:25.397 --> 00:09:30.338 IMPORTANT TO THIS DEFENDANT OR THAT DEFENDANT. WE'VE JUST DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW 99 00:09:30.338 --> 00:09:37.773 IT'S INDISPENSABLE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, WE DON'T 100 00:09:37.773 --> 00:09:43.777 KNOW WHAT THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND CASE BY CASE, 101 00:09:43.777 --> 00:09:51.319 BECAUSE JUSTICE PATTERSON's SAMPLE, THE CHIEF's EXAMPLE, THEY MAY BE ARRESTING HIM BASED 102 00:09:51.319 --> 00:09:55.291 ON INFORMATION THEY HAVE LEADING THEM TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM 103 00:09:55.291 --> 00:10:00.617 ON A PARTICULAR CHARGE, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT KIDNAPPING WHERE THEY HAVEN'T FOUND THE 104 00:10:00.617 --> 00:10:05.511 VICTIM YET TURNS OUT TO BE A MURDER. OR THE SIMPLE ASSAULT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS 105 00:10:05.511 --> 00:10:12.789 A FIGHT TURNS OUT TO BE A MURDER. SO WHAT IS THE -- THE CRITICAL INFORMATION IS GOING 106 00:10:12.789 --> 00:10:18.323 TO DEPEND ON, MAYBE IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S A BRIGHT LINE RULE, BUT IS THAT BRIGHT LINE 107 00:10:18.323 --> 00:10:23.354 WHAT HE'S CHARGED WITH OR WHAT HE'S ARGUESED FOR OR WHAT HE'S ULTIMATELY CHARGED WITH? 108 00:10:23.354 --> 00:10:28.295 THEY CAN BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AS TO WHAT IS -- I'M SURE DEFENDANT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW 109 00:10:28.295 --> 00:10:32.600 IF IT'S MURDER OR SIMPLE ASSAULT. I'M SURE DEFENDANT WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF IT'S THEFT 110 00:10:32.600 --> 00:10:38.358 OR ARMED ROBBERY. SO WHAT IS THE DETERMINATION? WHAT IS THE CRITICAL INFORMATION, WHAT 111 00:10:38.358 --> 00:10:44.399 THE OFFICER HAS IN HIS HEAD AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST OR WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD? 112 00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:48.742 ROCHELLE WATSON: THE CRITICAL INFORMATION IS THE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE 113 00:10:48.742 --> 00:10:53.868 OFFICER HAS TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THAT MOMENT. NOT WHAT'S IN HIS HEAD, BECAUSE 114 00:10:53.868 --> 00:10:58.251 PROBABLE CAUSE IS AN OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION. JUSTICE SOLOMON: IT WON'T MATTER 115 00:10:58.251 --> 00:11:04.620 -- SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET MOTIONS IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE ULTIMATE CHARGES ARE NOT 116 00:11:04.620 --> 00:11:09.943 WHAT THE OFFICER TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WAS ARRESTING HIM FOR. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET 117 00:11:09.943 --> 00:11:14.530 A MOTION IN ANY OF THOSE CASES? ROCHELLE WATSON: WELL, I THINK THAT SET OF 118 00:11:14.530 --> 00:11:18.887 CIRCUMSTANCES CAN EASILY PLAY OUT EVEN WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINT CHARGES. THERE 119 00:11:18.887 --> 00:11:25.698 MAY BE -- THE COMPLAINT MAY HAVE BEEN AMENDED AFTER THE OFFICER TELLS THE DEFENDANT HERE 120 00:11:25.698 --> 00:11:29.551 ARE THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU. JUSTICE SOLOMON: I GET YOU. BUT THAT'S NOT 121 00:11:29.551 --> 00:11:33.888 THE STANDARD. THIS COURT SAID THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD. THE STANDARD IS WHEN YOU'VE BEEN 122 00:11:33.888 --> 00:11:39.187 CHARGED, THE DEFENDANT HAS TO KNOW. WHATEVER HAPPENS THEREAFTER HAPPENS THEREAFTER. 123 00:11:39.187 --> 00:11:45.159 WHEN YOU'VE BEEN CHARGED, THE DEFENDANT HAS TO KNOW WHAT HE'S BEEN CHARGED WITH. 124 00:11:45.159 --> 00:11:49.184 ROCHELLE WATSON: I ONLY ANSWER THAT WAY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A.G.D. AND VINCENTY ONLY 125 00:11:49.184 --> 00:11:54.354 INVITES A LITTLE BIT OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE SENSE THAT A DEFENDANT CAN ALWAYS LITIGATE A 126 00:11:54.354 --> 00:11:59.308 MOTION SAYING THE CHARGES YOU TOLD ME WERE MISLEADING BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE CHARGES 127 00:11:59.308 --> 00:12:04.251 WERE FILED YOU NEEDED THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THE CHARGES DIDN'T REFLECT THAT. 128 00:12:04.251 --> 00:12:10.140 JUSTICE SOLOMON: IT DOESN'T MATTER. A.G.D. HAS ANSWER MD. IT'S A BRIGHT 129 00:12:10.140 --> 00:12:14.857 LINE RULE. ROCHELLE WATSON: WHAT THE DEFENDANT IS ASKING FOR AT THIS MOMENT 130 00:12:14.857 --> 00:12:19.808 IS TO JUST KNOW THE REASON FOR HIS ARREST, THE CHARGES THAT SUPPORT HIS ARREST. 131 00:12:19.808 --> 00:12:23.635 JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOUR COMPARISON IN OTHER CASES MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, BECAUSE I GUESS 132 00:12:23.635 --> 00:12:28.849 I COULD RAISE IN MY MOTION THAT TODAY IT'S NIGHTTIME RIGHT NOW BUT IT'S NOT NIGHTTIME. 133 00:12:28.849 --> 00:12:34.441 THERE ARE BRIGHT LINE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN VERY SPECIFIC CASES UNDER VERY 134 00:12:34.441 --> 00:12:41.550 SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT THIS WOULD LITERALLY BE -- COULD BE CHALLENGED IN EACH AND 135 00:12:41.550 --> 00:12:50.389 EVERY ARREST WHERE A CHARGING DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BY A JUDGE. COULD IT NOT LET 136 00:12:50.389 --> 00:12:57.559 MITLY BE RAISED AND WILL BE, I CAN GUARANTY IT, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE? UN-LIKE THE OTHER 137 00:12:57.559 --> 00:13:02.090 CASES YOU'VE CITED. ROCHELLE WATSON: CONCEIVABLY IT COULD BE RAISED IN MANY 138 00:13:02.090 --> 00:13:08.061 CASES. I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE ARE GOING TO BE LITIGATED, BUT THE ANSWER COMES DOWN TO 139 00:13:08.061 --> 00:13:12.666 WAS THE DEFENDANT INFORMED OF THE ESSENCE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. AND IT MAY BE A 140 00:13:12.666 --> 00:13:16.917 PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD ANALYSIS. THE JUDGE WILL SAY THIS IS WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS 141 00:13:16.917 --> 00:13:21.451 KNEW AND THEY ACCURATELY REFLECTED THE ESSENCE OF THE CHARGES WHEN THEY TOLD YOU, SO WE'RE 142 00:13:21.451 --> 00:13:26.690 NOT GOING TO SUPPRESS YOUR STATEMENT. I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SORT OF WE'VE 143 00:13:26.690 --> 00:13:32.958 ALREADY DECIDED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS INDISPENSABLE TO A CERTAIN CLASS OF 144 00:13:32.958 --> 00:13:36.845 DEFENDANTS. AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE DEFENDANTS IS NOTHING THAT THEY DID IT'S 145 00:13:36.845 --> 00:13:41.185 THE POLICE OFFICERS DECIDING NOT TO FILE A COMPLAINT WARRANT. SO A DEFENDANT DOESN'T 146 00:13:41.185 --> 00:13:45.324 -- JUSTICE SOLOMON: YOU SAID ALREADY DECIDED. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? 147 00:13:45.324 --> 00:13:48.909 ROCHELLE WATSON: A.G.D. AND VINCENTY HAS ALREADY SAID THIS IS IMPORTANT TO SOMEONE. 148 00:13:48.909 --> 00:13:53.833 JUSTICE SOLOMON: THAT SPECIFIC INFORMATION HAS TO BE DISCLOSED; CHARGING DOCUMENT, YOUR 149 00:13:53.833 --> 00:13:57.921 ATTORNEY IS OUTSIDE THE DOOR. ROCHELLE WATSON: YES. A DEFENDANT WHO IS 150 00:13:57.921 --> 00:14:04.158 ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT IS VERY SIMILARLY SITUATED BUT FOR THE FORMALITY OF THE CHARGES 151 00:14:04.158 --> 00:14:10.830 BEING FILED. WHICH HAS TO BE FILED IMMEDIATELY. SO I'M SUGGESTING THAT THAT PERSON -- 152 00:14:10.830 --> 00:14:18.093 THE JEOPARDY THAT HE'S FACING, THE FORCES OF THE STATE THAT ARE AGAINST HIM IS VERY SIMILAR 153 00:14:18.093 --> 00:14:23.406 TO THE DEFENDANTS IN A.G.D. AND VINCENTY AND IF WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED THAT IT'S 154 00:14:23.406 --> 00:14:28.513 INDISPENSABLE, IT MEANS THAT IT'S CRITICALLY -- AS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO DEFENDANTS LIKE 155 00:14:28.513 --> 00:14:38.462 MR. SIMS. YOU KNOW, IN O'NEILL -- I'M SORRY. IN REED AND PRONOUNCING THE 156 00:14:38.462 --> 00:14:44.951 RULE THAT DEPARTED FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT. THE DISSENT HAD A 157 00:14:44.951 --> 00:14:50.233 PARADE OF HYPOTHETICALS THAT MAY OCCUR AND ALL OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THIS NEW RULE WOULD HAVE 158 00:14:50.233 --> 00:14:56.787 BEEN LITIGATED AND MUDDIED THE WATERS. AND THE COURT SAID THAT THE RULE IS -- CAN BE EASILY 159 00:14:56.787 --> 00:15:02.898 ADMINISTERED BECAUSE YOU'VE DECIDED -- THE RULE IN THIS CASE. THERE IS AN ARREST THAT'S 160 00:15:02.898 --> 00:15:08.654 BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE, IT HAS TO BE TIED TO AN OFFENSE. THE DEFENDANT IS SIMPLY ASKING 161 00:15:08.654 --> 00:15:13.271 FOR THE ESSENCE OF THE CHARGES THAT HE'S FACING AT THAT MOMENT. AND BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY 162 00:15:13.271 --> 00:15:18.949 DECIDED THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND BECAUSE THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THE ONE THAT'S 163 00:15:18.949 --> 00:15:25.141 SOLELY WITHIN THE HANDS OF THE PROFFER, THERE'S NO REASON TO TREAT THIS CLASS OF DEFENDANTS 164 00:15:25.141 --> 00:15:43.621 DIFFERENTLY. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU, MS. TD WATSON MR. 165 00:15:43.621 --> 00:15:48.063 O'CONNOR: THE PARADE OF HORRIBLES SET FORTH BY THE STATE IS THE SAME THAT WAS RAISED IN 166 00:15:48.063 --> 00:15:57.374 O'NEILL, IN READ, IN A.G.D., AND IN VINCENTY, AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED. AND I SUGGEST TO YOU 167 00:15:57.374 --> 00:16:05.018 THAT THIS CASE IS NOT THAT HARD, THAT THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ENDLESS LITIGATION 168 00:16:05.018 --> 00:16:16.305 OVER THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE. THE POLICE OFFICER BY STATUTE, BY LAW, HAS TO HAVE PROBABLE 169 00:16:16.305 --> 00:16:21.513 CAUSE THAT AN OFFENSE, THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THIS DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO 170 00:16:21.513 --> 00:16:26.189 EFFECTUATE THAT ARREST. HE CANNOT ARREST THE PERSON BECAUSE HE'S A BAD GUY, HE CAN'T 171 00:16:26.189 --> 00:16:30.256 ARREST HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE HIM, HE CAN'T ARREST HIM BECAUSE MAYBE HE COMMITTED 172 00:16:30.256 --> 00:16:35.494 A CRIME AND I'LL FIGURE IT OUT AFTER I TALK TO THE PROSECUTOR, THAT'S NOT THE LAW. AND 173 00:16:35.494 --> 00:16:40.834 WHAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT COUNTENANCE IS TO ALLOW THE STATE AS THEY'VE ADMITTED TO MA 174 00:16:40.834 --> 00:16:49.093 NIPULATE THE CHARGING PROCESS TO GET AROUND A DEMAND FROM THIS COURT THAT THEY PROVIDES 175 00:16:49.093 --> 00:16:56.533 CRITICAL INFORMATION TO GET PEOPLE TO WAIVE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE 176 00:16:56.533 --> 00:17:01.591 DOING, THEY'VE ADMITTED THAT. THE QUESTION HERE IS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW 177 00:17:01.591 --> 00:17:11.791 WHEN TO DRAW THAT LINE, I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT'S RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, THE OVRS 178 00:17:11.791 --> 00:17:17.564 HAS TO KNOW WHY HE ARRESTED THAT PERSON, HE HAS TO KNOW WHAT OFFENSE HE'S COMMITTED OR 179 00:17:17.564 --> 00:17:23.334 HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE, AND THE TIME BOX SHOULD BE AT THE TIME WHEN THEY GO TO 180 00:17:23.334 --> 00:17:32.495 ADMINISTER THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT IS NOT HARD FOR THE OFFICER 181 00:17:32.495 --> 00:17:37.349 TO SAY WE HAVE ARRESTED YOU FOR THIS AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO WAIVE YOUR MIRANDA 182 00:17:37.349 --> 00:17:42.861 WARNINGS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IN SOME CASES THAT'S CERTAINLY EASY TO 183 00:17:42.861 --> 00:17:47.651 DETERMINE, IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THAT'S ALWAYS TRUE? MR. O'CONNOR: YES, 184 00:17:47.651 --> 00:17:55.453 HOW COULD AN OFFICER NOT KNOW WHY HE'S ARRESTED SOMEONE, IF THAT'S TRUE -- THE 185 00:17:55.453 --> 00:17:58.372 COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE YOUR VOICE. MR. O'CONNOR: I'M SORRY, I'M 186 00:17:58.372 --> 00:18:03.497 A LITTLE EXCITED, AFTER LISTENING TO THIS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU'VE 187 00:18:03.497 --> 00:18:13.052 HEARD THE EXAMPLES OF KIDNAPPING AND THE OTHERS, WOULDN'T YOU FILE TO INSIST ON A HEARING 188 00:18:13.052 --> 00:18:17.166 TO KNOW WHAT THE OFFICER KNEW AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. MR. O'CONNOR: I THINK, 189 00:18:17.166 --> 00:18:22.192 YOUR HONOR, THAT WILL ONLY BECOME REALISTIC IF THE OFFICERS ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL, THE 190 00:18:22.192 --> 00:18:27.477 ISSUE IS IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SOMEONE FOR KIDNAPPING, ALREADY A SERIOUS 191 00:18:27.477 --> 00:18:34.870 OFFENSE, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE VEIL COMING DOWN ON YOU, WHAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE IS HAVE 192 00:18:34.870 --> 00:18:40.329 PROBABLE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T FOUND THE BODY OR YEAH, WE KNOW WHO KILLED HIM OR 193 00:18:40.329 --> 00:18:44.880 WHO IT IS, THAT IS REASONABLE FOR THE OFFICER TO SAY YES I HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST 194 00:18:44.880 --> 00:18:50.814 YOU FOR KIDNAPPING AND THEN TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR QUESTIONING AND THEN IN THE COURSE 195 00:18:50.814 --> 00:18:56.337 OF THAT QUESTIONING THE GUY SAYS YES I KILLED HER, AND THEN THEY CAN GO TO THE PROSECUTOR 196 00:18:56.337 --> 00:19:00.806 TO FILE OTHER CHARGES, THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THE ONLY TIME 197 00:19:00.806 --> 00:19:06.429 I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET LITIGATION IS WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER ARRIVES AND SAYS I'M 198 00:19:06.429 --> 00:19:17.005 ARRESTING YOU FOR A PAROLE VIOLATION AND IT'S REALLY FOR A MURDER -- JUSTICE 199 00:19:17.005 --> 00:19:19.570 SOLOMON: DID YOU JUST SAY THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. MR. O'CONNOR: I THINK IT'S 200 00:19:19.570 --> 00:19:24.467 A FAKE ISSUE, JUDGE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: SO THAT DEFENDANT THAT HE SAYS I 201 00:19:24.467 --> 00:19:30.463 PICKED YOU UP FOR KIDNAPPING AND HE GIVES A STATEMENT, AND A DAY LATER THEY FIENGD THE 202 00:19:30.463 --> 00:19:37.023 BODY OF THERE VICTIM WHICH THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT MOTION IS NOT GOING TO BE FILED 203 00:19:37.023 --> 00:19:40.715 BY YOU AS DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SUPPRESS THAT STATEMENT. MR. O'CONNOR: JUDGE, 204 00:19:40.715 --> 00:19:48.401 MOTIONS ARE FILED FOR ALL SORTS OF THINGS, AS YOU SAID, I CAN FILE A MOTION TONIGHT. 205 00:19:48.401 --> 00:19:50.744 JUSTICE SOLOMON: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. MR. O'CONNOR: I'M 206 00:19:50.744 --> 00:19:55.781 TRYING TO GET THERE, JUDGE SICHLTH PLEASE DO -- MR. O'CONNOR: THE POINT IS 207 00:19:55.781 --> 00:20:04.087 AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THE ARREST TAKES PLACE, THE OFFICER WILL KNOW WHAT HE HAS PROBABLE 208 00:20:04.087 --> 00:20:07.412 CAUSE TO ARREST HIM FOR. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. 209 00:20:07.412 --> 00:20:10.415 MR. O'CONNOR: I APOLOGIZE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: LET ME ASK IT AGAIN, I'LL 210 00:20:10.415 --> 00:20:18.025 SPEAK SLOWLY. A PERSON GETS ARRESTED FOR KIDNAPPING, THEY INTERVIEW HIM AND SAY WE 211 00:20:18.025 --> 00:20:24.650 ARREST YOU FOR TAKING SO AND SO, HE GETS ARRESTED, HE MAKES STATEMENTS, HE GETS CHARGED 212 00:20:24.650 --> 00:20:32.672 AND SOME INCRIMINATING, HE GETS CHARGED 3 DAYS, 3 HOURS, TWO HOURS LATER, WITH KIDNAPPING 213 00:20:32.672 --> 00:20:40.539 AND MURDER BECAUSE THEY FIND THE BODY OF THE PERSON THEY THOUGHT WAS KIDNAPED, YOU'RE 214 00:20:40.539 --> 00:20:45.734 TELLING ME, HE'S NOW CHARGED WITH KIDNAPPING AND MURDER, OR MAYBE JUST MURDER, GOD ONLY 215 00:20:45.734 --> 00:20:51.493 KNOWS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FILE THAT MOTION THAT SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, YOU WERE INVESTIGATING 216 00:20:51.493 --> 00:20:58.167 HIM FOR MURDER AND YOU ONLY TOLD HIM THIS, AND THAT WAS JUST TO GET HIM TALKING AND SAYING 217 00:20:58.167 --> 00:21:03.081 INCRIMINATING THINGS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FILE THAT MOTION? MR. O'CONNOR: 218 00:21:03.081 --> 00:21:07.788 WOULDN'T I FILE THE SAME MOTION UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARGUMENT, YOUR 219 00:21:07.788 --> 00:21:12.443 HONOR, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT SAYING LOOK, IT'S CRITICAL INFORMATION, 220 00:21:12.443 --> 00:21:19.679 I SHOULD HAVE HAD IT, THEY WITHHELD IT FROM ME, YOU'RE NOT GETTING AWAY FROM THAT BY SAYING 221 00:21:19.679 --> 00:21:24.734 TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT IS AN AMORPHOUS STANDARD THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BRING 222 00:21:24.734 --> 00:21:33.866 UP ANYTHING, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO THE PARADE OF HORRIBLES THAT THE STATE 223 00:21:33.866 --> 00:21:37.121 IS REFERRING TO. JUSTICE SOLOMON: ARE YOU ARGUING FOR A TOTALITY OF THE 224 00:21:37.121 --> 00:21:40.511 CIRCUMSTANCES -- MR. O'CONNOR: NO, YOUR HONOR, I'M ARGUING THAT YOU WILL 225 00:21:40.511 --> 00:21:44.275 STILL HAVE THAT MOTION. JUSTICE SOLOMON: WHAT WILL THAT MOTION BE BASED 226 00:21:44.275 --> 00:21:47.725 ON. MR. O'CONNOR: I GUESS WE'RE SAYING IF THE COURT ISSUES -- UPHOLDING 227 00:21:47.725 --> 00:21:52.653 SIMS AND SAYS THE OFFICER OR THE INTERROGATING OFFICER HAS TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT AT 228 00:21:52.653 --> 00:21:58.569 THE TIME THAT THEY ISSUE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR X, FOR KIDNAPPING, 229 00:21:58.569 --> 00:22:03.578 AND THEY DO THAT AND THEN LATER ON DURING THE COURSE OF THE INTERROGATION THE GUY ADMITS 230 00:22:03.578 --> 00:22:08.511 OH BY THE WAY I NOT OATH KIDNAPED HER, BUT I KILLED HER. JUSTICE SOLOMON: 231 00:22:08.511 --> 00:22:13.761 THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. MR. O'CONNOR: I'M TRYING TO FIND THE 232 00:22:13.761 --> 00:22:16.858 HYPOTHETICAL. JUSTICE SOLOMON: MY QUESTION IS NOT IF WE SUSTAIN SIMS, THEN 233 00:22:16.858 --> 00:22:22.231 THAT MOTION IS DEFINITELY BEING FILED, BUT IF WE DON'T SUSTAIN SIMS YOU'RE SAYING THAT 234 00:22:22.231 --> 00:22:25.712 MOTION IS GOING TO BE FILED ANYWAY. MR. O'CONNOR: YES, BECAUSE UNDER THE 235 00:22:25.712 --> 00:22:29.119 TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES I COULD STILL MAKE THAT MOTION SAYING LOOK, THEY WITHHELD 236 00:22:29.119 --> 00:22:33.303 CRITICAL INFORMATION FROM ME AND DIDN'T TELL ME WHEN THEY HAD IT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE 237 00:22:33.303 --> 00:22:39.348 TOLD ME BECAUSE I NEEDED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE I MAKE A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY -- 238 00:22:39.348 --> 00:22:42.366 JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME MOTION BECAUSE THE MOTION THAT YOU WOULD MAKE 239 00:22:42.366 --> 00:22:48.946 IN JUSTICE SOL'S HYPOTHETICAL IS I WAS TOLD ALL THEY WERE LOOKING AT ME FOR WAS A KIDNAPPING, 240 00:22:48.946 --> 00:22:56.175 NOW I FOUND OUT THAT WHAT THEY WERE REALLY GOING AFTER ME FOR WAS A MURDER, I MEAN THAT'S 241 00:22:56.175 --> 00:23:01.795 A MUCH MORE SORT OF BRIGHT LINE KIND OF MOTION THAN THE TOTALITY MOTION THAT YOU'RE TALKING 242 00:23:01.795 --> 00:23:05.036 ABOUT. MR. O'CONNOR: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, IF THE FACTS ARE THE OVRGS AT THE TIME 243 00:23:05.036 --> 00:23:10.162 HE MADE THE ARREST HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST FOR KIDNAPPING AND NOT FOR MURDER, I DON'T 244 00:23:10.162 --> 00:23:15.888 SEE THAT THLS THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO GO VERY FAR. JUSTICE 245 00:23:15.888 --> 00:23:20.788 FERNANDEZ-VINA: IF THEY'RE THE SAME, WHY DO YOU NEED SIMS, IF THEY'RE THE SAME AND YOU 246 00:23:20.788 --> 00:23:25.186 CAN DO IT ANYWAY, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN SIMS, WHY DO YOU NEED SIMS? 247 00:23:25.186 --> 00:23:27.247 MR. O'CONNOR: BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL 248 00:23:27.247 --> 00:23:31.915 TRY TO MANIPULATE THE CHARGING DECISIONS TO GET AROUND WHAT IS A BRIGHT LINE RULE AND 249 00:23:31.915 --> 00:23:34.986 WILL MAKE IT EASIER. JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: BUT YOU'RE SAYING TOTALITY 250 00:23:34.986 --> 00:23:41.092 OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS SIMS SO WHY DO YOU NEED SIMS IF YOU ALREADY 251 00:23:41.092 --> 00:23:44.608 HAVE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN YOUR ARSENAL. MR. O'CONNOR: BECAUSE IT 252 00:23:44.608 --> 00:23:48.605 GETS AWAY FROM THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM THE PERSON THAT 253 00:23:48.605 --> 00:23:52.070 HAS THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID 254 00:23:52.070 --> 00:23:57.176 WE'VE SEEN THIS MANIPULATION, I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE, IS THERE A RECORD, HAVE THERE BEEN 255 00:23:57.176 --> 00:24:04.044 CASES IN WHICH THIS HAS COME UP IN THE MANY CASES THAT HAVE BEEN -- MR. O'CONNOR: 256 00:24:04.044 --> 00:24:07.845 THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ALL BUT ADMITTED IT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 257 00:24:07.845 --> 00:24:13.800 I HEARD WHAT HE SAID, I'M ASKING YOU HAVE THERE BEEN CASES THAT DEMONSTRATE MANIPULATION. 258 00:24:13.800 --> 00:24:17.653 MR. O'CONNOR: I THINK WHAT YOU SEE HERE, JUDGE, IN THIS CASE, IS THE OFFICERS 259 00:24:17.653 --> 00:24:23.477 HAD INFORMATION ON THE 13TH, DID NOT GO GET A COMPLAINT TO THE 13TH, FOUND OUT WHEN MR. 260 00:24:23.477 --> 00:24:29.988 SIMS WAS GOING TO BE IN THE PAROLE OFFICER SO THEY CAN PLAN FOR AN ARREST AND WENT AND 261 00:24:29.988 --> 00:24:35.461 DID A WASHTSLESS ARREST, THEY DID NOT BRING HIM TO A POLICE STATION TO FILE A COMPLAINT, 262 00:24:35.461 --> 00:24:41.090 THEY BROUGHT HIM TO A SATELLITE OFFICE TO INTERROGATE HIM, I THINK YOU WERE INFER FROM 263 00:24:41.090 --> 00:24:46.232 THOSE SET OF FACTS THAT THE OVRSS DID MANIPULATE THE CHARGING DECISIONS IN ORDER TO 264 00:24:46.232 --> 00:24:50.472 INTERROGATE THIS DEFENDANT WITHOUT ADVISING HIM OF THE CHARGES. JUSTICE ALBIN: 265 00:24:50.472 --> 00:24:54.415 I'M TRYING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SITUATION AND A.G.D. THE POLICE OFFICERS, 266 00:24:54.415 --> 00:25:01.289 GIVEN THE HYPOTHETICAL, CAN GET A KIDNAPPING COMPLAINT AND UNDER THAT HYPOTHETICAL CAN, 267 00:25:01.289 --> 00:25:08.158 I GUESS, COULD STILL QUESTION THE PERSON ABOUT POTENTIAL MURDER OF THE BODY IS MISSING, 268 00:25:08.158 --> 00:25:16.711 SO MY QUESTION IS, HAS THE SYSTEM BEEN OVERWHELMED WITH MOTIONS, HAS IT BEEN THROWN 269 00:25:16.711 --> 00:25:22.902 INTO TODAY DISARRAY. MR. O'CONNOR: BASED ON WHAT I HEARD BEFORE IN THE ATTORNEY 270 00:25:22.902 --> 00:25:28.285 GENERAL'S OFFICE IT HAS NOT AND I AGREE WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO CONCEPTUAL 271 00:25:28.285 --> 00:25:32.951 DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING ARRESTED ON THE POINT AND BEING ARRESTED ON A PROBABLE CAUSE 272 00:25:32.951 --> 00:25:37.057 BY AN OFFICER IN TERMS OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH WHETHER THE CHARGES COULD BE AMENDED, 273 00:25:37.057 --> 00:25:43.196 WHETHER THEY COULD BE UPGRADED, WHETHER THEY COULD BE DOWNGRADED, THAT CAN HAPPEN IN BOTH 274 00:25:43.196 --> 00:25:46.238 CIRCUMSTANCES AND I AGREE WITH YOUR HONOR THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. CHIEF JUSTICE 275 00:25:46.238 --> 00:25:48.961 RABNER: MR. O'CONNOR DO YOU STANDBY THE LIMITS IN THE OPINION. MR. O'CONNOR: 276 00:25:48.961 --> 00:25:54.436 I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY, JUDGE, AND HERE'S WHY, FOR THE SAME REASON I SAID, AT 277 00:25:54.436 --> 00:26:02.730 THE TIME THE OFFICER MAKES THE ARREST, HE OR SHE AT THAT MOECHLT MUST KNOW WHAT OFFENSE 278 00:26:02.730 --> 00:26:09.053 THEY ARE ARRESTING THE DEFENDANT FOR, AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT DISTINCTION ON WHETHER 279 00:26:09.053 --> 00:26:13.486 -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: THEY MUST KNOW THE OFFENSE, THE SECOND OF THE ARREST, 280 00:26:13.486 --> 00:26:19.079 THERE'S A SHOOTING, THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL IN THE AREA, WITNESSES ARE MAKING STATEMENTS, 281 00:26:19.079 --> 00:26:24.335 AN OFFICER AREAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND MUST KNOW ULTIMATELY THIS IS GOING TO BE AN AGGRAVATED 282 00:26:24.335 --> 00:26:29.494 MANSLAUGHTER. MR. O'CONNOR: NO, NO, YOU ADDED Z ULTIMATELY, THAT'S NOT WHAT 283 00:26:29.494 --> 00:26:34.580 I SAID, AT THE TIME HE MAKES THE ARREST HE HAS TO KNOW AT THAT MOMENT WHAT HE'S ARRESTING 284 00:26:34.580 --> 00:26:40.112 HIM FOR, THOSE CHARGES CAN CHANGE, THEY CAN CERTAINLY CHANGE AS THE CASE PROCEEDS, I 285 00:26:40.112 --> 00:26:45.442 DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISAGREEMENT ON THAT, BUT AT THE MOMENT HE AREAS THE PERSON HE 286 00:26:45.442 --> 00:26:51.057 OR SHE HAS TO KNOW AT THAT MOMENT WHAT HE'S ARRESTING THE PERSON FOR A-AND THAT IS THE 287 00:26:51.057 --> 00:26:56.383 INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED, WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO LOOK INTO A CRYSTAL BALL 288 00:26:56.383 --> 00:27:00.562 AND SAY LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO ADD THIS CHARGE OR DOWNGRADE 289 00:27:00.562 --> 00:27:05.663 THAT CHARGE, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEEN ASKED IT'S AT THE MOMENT OF THE ARREST OR I THINK 290 00:27:05.663 --> 00:27:09.313 MORE ACCURATELY AT THE MOMENT OF THE INTERROGATION. CHIEF JUSTICE 291 00:27:09.313 --> 00:27:17.753 RABNER: ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: I HAVE ONE 292 00:27:17.753 --> 00:27:20.641 QUESTION FOR YOU, COUNSEL. MR. O'CONNOR: YES, YOUR HONOR. 293 00:27:20.641 --> 00:27:27.520 JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: MR. O'CONNOR, UNDER YOUR POSITION DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER 294 00:27:27.520 --> 00:27:30.754 THE DEFENDANT ASKED WHAT AM I BEING ARRESTED FOR OR NOT. MR. O'CONNOR: I DON'T 295 00:27:30.754 --> 00:27:34.638 THINK IT DOES, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT GOES TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER IS THE 296 00:27:34.638 --> 00:27:40.856 -- YOU CAN'T PUT THIS RIGHT ON HIM, THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED HAVING ENOUGH FORTITUDE 297 00:27:40.856 --> 00:27:47.049 TO SAY WHAT AM I BEING ARRESTED FOR, IT'S THE SAME AS HIM SAYING WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE 298 00:27:47.049 --> 00:27:51.715 MIRANDA BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT NOT TO TALK TO US SO WHY DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THE 299 00:27:51.715 --> 00:27:58.760 WARNING, SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE DEFENDANT OR THE AREA TEASE ASKING OR NOT ASKING WHY 300 00:27:58.760 --> 00:28:06.153 HE'S BEEN ARRESTED IS OF NO IMPORT. YOUR HONOR, AND I JUST I REST IF THERE'S 301 00:28:06.153 --> 00:28:15.437 NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, I REST ON THE ARGUMENT IN MY PAPERS ON THE 302 00:28:15.437 --> 00:29:06.985 CONFRONTATION CLAUSE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 303 00:29:06.985 --> 00:29:06.986 AMICUS CURIAE: THE PARADE OF HORRIBLES SET FORTH BY THE STATE IS THE SAME THAT WAS 304 00:29:06.986 --> 00:29:06.991 RAISED IN O'NEILL, IN READ, IN AGD, AND IN VINCENTY, AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED. AND 305 00:29:06.991 --> 00:29:06.995 I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THIS CASE IS NOT THAT HARD, THAT THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE 306 00:29:06.995 --> 00:29:07.064 ENDLESS LITIGATION OVER THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE. THE POLICE OFFICER BY STATUTE, 307 00:29:07.064 --> 00:29:07.080 BY LAW, HAS TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT AN OFFENSE, THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED 308 00:29:07.080 --> 00:29:07.080 BY THIS DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THAT ARREST. HE CANNOT ARREST THE 309 00:29:07.080 --> 00:29:07.080 PERSON BECAUSE HE'S A BAD GUY, HE CAN'T ARREST HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE HIM, HE 310 00:29:07.080 --> 00:29:07.095 CAN'T ARREST HIM BECAUSE MAYBE HE COMMITTED A CRIME AND I'LL FIGURE IT OUT AFTER I 311 00:29:07.095 --> 00:29:07.110 TALK TO THE PROSECUTOR, THAT'S NOT THE LAW. AND WHAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT 312 00:29:07.110 --> 00:29:07.142 COUNTENANCE IS TO ALLOW THE STATE AS THEY'VE ADMITTED TO MANIPULATE THE 313 00:29:07.142 --> 00:29:07.142 CHARGING PROCESS TO GET AROUND A DEMAND FROM THIS COURT THAT THEY PROVIDES CRITICAL 314 00:29:07.142 --> 00:29:07.189 INFORMATION TO GET PEOPLE TO WAIVE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE 315 00:29:07.189 --> 00:29:07.327 DOING, THEY'VE ADMITTED THAT. THE QUESTION HERE IS IF YOU WANT TO 316 00:29:07.327 --> 00:29:07.374 KNOW WHEN TO DRAW THAT LINE, I SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT'S RELATIVELY 317 00:29:07.374 --> 00:29:07.374 STRAIGHTFORWARD, THE OVRS HAS TO KNOW WHY HE ARRESTED THAT PERSON, HE HAS TO KNOW WHAT 318 00:29:07.374 --> 00:29:07.389 OFFENSE HE'S COMMITTED OR HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE, AND THE TIME BOX 319 00:29:07.389 --> 00:29:07.452 SHOULD BE AT THE TIME WHEN THEY GO TO ADMINISTER THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, AT THAT POINT IN 320 00:29:07.452 --> 00:29:07.546 TIME IT IS NOT HARD FOR THE OFFICER TO SAY WE HAVE ARRESTED YOU FOR THIS AND NOW 321 00:29:07.546 --> 00:29:07.671 WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO WAIVE YOUR MIRANDA WARNINGS. CHIEF JUSTICE 322 00:29:07.671 --> 00:29:07.686 RABNER: IN SOME CASES THAT'S CERTAINLY EASY TO DETERMINE, IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT 323 00:29:07.686 --> 00:29:07.796 THAT'S ALWAYS TRUE? AMICUS CURIAE: YES, HOW COULD AN OFFICER 324 00:29:07.796 --> 00:29:07.936 NOT KNOW WHY HE'S ARRESTED SOMEONE, IF THAT'S TRUE -- THE COURT: 325 00:29:07.936 --> 00:29:07.983 YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE YOUR VOICE. AMICUS CURIAE: I'M SORRY, I'M 326 00:29:07.983 --> 00:29:08.092 A LITTLE EXCITED, AFTER LISTENING TO THIS. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: 327 00:29:08.092 --> 00:29:08.178 YOU'VE HEARD THE EXAMPLES OF KIDNAPPING AND THE OTHERS, WOULDN'T YOU FILE TO 328 00:29:08.178 --> 00:29:08.254 INSIST ON A HEARING TO KNOW WHAT THE OFFICER KNEW AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. 329 00:29:08.254 --> 00:29:08.254 AMICUS CURIAE: I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT WILL ONLY BECOME REALISTIC IF THE 330 00:29:08.254 --> 00:29:08.318 OFFICERS ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL, THE ISSUE IS IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO 331 00:29:08.318 --> 00:29:08.318 ARREST SOMEONE FOR KIDNAPPING, ALREADY A SERIOUS OFFENSE, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE VEIL 332 00:29:08.318 --> 00:29:08.381 COMING DOWN ON YOU, WHAT THEY HAVEN'T DONE IS HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE BECAUSE THEY 333 00:29:08.381 --> 00:29:08.381 HAVEN'T FOUND THE BODY OR YEAH, WE KNOW WHO KILLED HIM OR WHO IT IS, THAT IS REASONABLE 334 00:29:08.381 --> 00:29:08.521 FOR THE OFFICER TO SAY YES I HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST YOU FOR KIDNAPPING AND 335 00:29:08.521 --> 00:29:08.521 THEN TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR QUESTIONING AND THEN IN THE COURSE OF THAT QUESTIONING THE 336 00:29:08.521 --> 00:29:08.646 GUY SAYS YES I KILLED HER, AND THEN THEY CAN GO TO THE PROSECUTOR TO FILE OTHER 337 00:29:08.646 --> 00:29:08.646 CHARGES, THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THE ONLY TIME I THINK 338 00:29:08.646 --> 00:29:08.646 YOU'RE GOING TO GET LITIGATION IS WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER ARRIVES AND SAYS I'M 339 00:29:08.646 --> 00:29:08.646 ARRESTING YOU FOR A PAROLE VIOLATION AND IT'S REALLY FOR A MURDER -- 340 00:29:08.646 --> 00:29:08.724 JUSTICE SOLOMON: DID YOU JUST SAY THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. AMICUS 341 00:29:08.724 --> 00:29:08.724 CURIAE: I THINK IT'S A FAKE ISSUE, JUDGE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: SO THAT 342 00:29:08.724 --> 00:29:08.740 DEFENDANT THAT HE SAYS I PICKED YOU UP FOR KIDNAPPING AND HE GIVES A STATEMENT, 343 00:29:08.740 --> 00:29:08.740 AND A DAY LATER THEY FIENGD THE BODY OF THERE VICTIM WHICH THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, 344 00:29:08.740 --> 00:29:08.803 THAT MOTION IS NOT GOING TO BE FILED BY YOU AS DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SUPPRESS THAT 345 00:29:08.803 --> 00:29:08.818 STATEMENT. AMICUS CURIAE: JUDGE, MOTIONS ARE FILED FOR ALL SORTS 346 00:29:08.818 --> 00:29:08.818 OF THINGS, AS YOU SAID, I CAN FILE A MOTION TONIGHT. JUSTICE 347 00:29:08.818 --> 00:29:08.834 SOLOMON: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. AMICUS CURIAE: I'M TRYING TO GET THERE, 348 00:29:08.834 --> 00:29:08.834 JUDGE SICHLTH PLEASE DO -- 2NDDFNS: THE POINT IS AT THE POINT IN 349 00:29:08.834 --> 00:29:08.849 TIME THAT THE ARREST TAKES PLACE, THE OFFICER WILL KNOW WHAT HE HAS PROBABLE 350 00:29:08.849 --> 00:29:08.849 CAUSE TO ARREST HIM FOR. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED. 351 00:29:08.849 --> 00:29:08.865 AMICUS CURIAE: I APOLOGIZE. JUSTICE SOLOMON: LET ME 352 00:29:08.865 --> 00:29:08.881 ASK IT AGAIN, I'LL SPEAK SLOWLY. A PERSON GETS ARRESTED FOR KIDNAPPING, THEY 353 00:29:08.881 --> 00:29:08.928 INTERVIEW HIM AND SAY WE ARREST YOU FOR TAKING SO AND SO, HE GETS ARRESTED, HE MAKES 354 00:29:08.928 --> 00:29:08.943 STATEMENTS, HE GETS CHARGED AND SOME INCRIMINATING, HE GETS CHARGED 3 DAYS, 355 00:29:08.943 --> 00:29:08.943 3 HOURS, TWO HOURS LATER, WITH KIDNAPPING AND MURDER BECAUSE THEY FIND THE BODY OF 356 00:29:08.943 --> 00:29:08.943 THE PERSON THEY THOUGHT WAS KIDNAPED, YOU'RE TELLING ME, HE'S NOW CHARGED WITH 357 00:29:08.943 --> 00:29:09.021 KIDNAPPING AND MURDER, OR MAYBE JUST MURDER, GOD ONLY KNOWS, YOU'RE NOT 358 00:29:09.021 --> 00:29:09.068 GOING TO FILE THAT MOTION THAT SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR MURDER 359 00:29:09.068 --> 00:29:09.068 AND YOU ONLY TOLD HIM THIS, AND THAT WAS JUST TO GET HIM TALKING AND SAYING 360 00:29:09.068 --> 00:29:09.146 INCRIMINATING THINGS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FILE THAT MOTION? 361 00:29:09.146 --> 00:29:09.193 AMICUS CURIAE: WOULDN'T I FILE THE SAME MOTION UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE 362 00:29:09.193 --> 00:29:09.256 CIRCUMSTANCES ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT 363 00:29:09.256 --> 00:29:09.334 SAYING LOOK, IT'S CRITICAL INFORMATION, I SHOULD HAVE HAD IT, THEY WITHHELD IT 364 00:29:09.334 --> 00:29:09.349 FROM ME, YOU'RE NOT GETTING AWAY FROM THAT BY SAYING TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, 365 00:29:09.349 --> 00:29:09.412 THAT IS AN AMORPHOUS STANDARD THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BRING UP ANYTHING, SO I DON'T 366 00:29:09.412 --> 00:29:09.412 THINK IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO THE PARADE OF HORRIBLES THAT THE STATE IS REFERRING TO. 367 00:29:09.412 --> 00:29:09.459 JUSTICE SOLOMON: ARE YOU ARGUING FOR A TOTALITY OF THE 368 00:29:09.459 --> 00:29:09.474 CIRCUMSTANCES -- 2NDDFNS: NO, YOUR HONOR, I'M ARGUING THAT YOU WILL 369 00:29:09.474 --> 00:29:09.584 STILL HAVE THAT MOTION. JUSTICE SOLOMON: WHAT WILL THAT MOTION BE 370 00:29:09.584 --> 00:29:09.599 BASED ON. AMICUS CURIAE: I GUESS WE'RE SAYING IF THE 371 00:29:09.599 --> 00:29:09.646 COURT ISSUES -- UPHOLDING SIMS AND SAYS THE OFFICER OR THE INTERROGATING OFFICER 372 00:29:09.646 --> 00:29:09.662 HAS TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME THAT THEY ISSUE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS YOU HAVE 373 00:29:09.662 --> 00:29:09.693 BEEN ARRESTED FOR X, FOR KIDNAPPING, AND THEY DO THAT AND THEN LATER ON DURING 374 00:29:09.693 --> 00:29:09.693 THE COURSE OF THE INTERROGATION THE GUY ADMITS OH BY THE WAY I NOT OATH KIDNAPED HER, 375 00:29:09.693 --> 00:29:09.740 BUT I KILLED HER. JUSTICE SOLOMON: THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. 376 00:29:09.740 --> 00:29:09.834 AMICUS CURIAE: I'M TRYING TO FIND THE HYPOTHETICAL. 377 00:29:09.834 --> 00:29:09.834 JUSTICE SOLOMON: MY QUESTION IS NOT IF WE SUSTAIN SIMS, THEN THAT MOTION IS 378 00:29:09.834 --> 00:29:09.834 DEFINITELY BEING FILED, BUT IF WE DON'T SUSTAIN SIMS YOU'RE SAYING THAT MOTION 379 00:29:09.834 --> 00:29:09.834 IS GOING TO BE FILED ANYWAY. AMICUS CURIAE: YES, BECAUSE UNDER THE 380 00:29:09.834 --> 00:29:09.849 TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES I COULD STILL MAKE THAT MOTION SAYING LOOK, THEY 381 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 WITHHELD CRITICAL INFORMATION FROM ME AND DIDN'T TELL ME WHEN THEY HAD IT AND THEY 382 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME BECAUSE I NEEDED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE I MAKE A KNOWING AND 383 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 VOLUNTARY -- JUSTICE PATTERSON: BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME 384 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 MOTION BECAUSE THE MOTION THAT YOU WOULD MAKE IN JUSTICE SOL'S HYPOTHETICAL IS I WAS 385 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 TOLD ALL THEY WERE LOOKING AT ME FOR WAS A KIDNAPPING, NOW I FOUND OUT THAT WHAT 386 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 THEY WERE REALLY GOING AFTER ME FOR WAS A MURDER, I MEAN THAT'S A MUCH MORE SORT 387 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 OF BRIGHT LINE KIND OF MOTION THAN THE TOTALITY MOTION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 388 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 AMICUS CURIAE: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, IF THE FACTS ARE THE OVRGS AT 389 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.849 THE TIME HE MADE THE ARREST HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST FOR KIDNAPPING AND NOT FOR 390 00:29:09.849 --> 00:29:09.865 MURDER, I DON'T SEE THAT THLS THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO GO VERY FAR. 391 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: IF THEY'RE THE SAME, WHY DO YOU NEED 392 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 SIMS, IF THEY'RE THE SAME AND YOU CAN DO IT ANYWAY, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN 393 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 SIMS, WHY DO YOU NEED SIMS? AMICUS CURIAE: BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN, 394 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 YOUR HONOR, THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL TRY TO MANIPULATE THE CHARGING 395 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 DECISIONS TO GET AROUND WHAT IS A BRIGHT LINE RULE AND WILL MAKE IT EASIER. 396 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.865 JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA: BUT YOU'RE SAYING TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES 397 00:29:09.865 --> 00:29:09.881 HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS SIMS SO WHY DO YOU NEED SIMS IF YOU ALREADY HAVE TOTALITY 398 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN YOUR ARSENAL. AMICUS CURIAE: BECAUSE IT GETS AWAY FROM 399 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM THE PERSON THAT HAS 400 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 THE 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID 401 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 WE'VE SEEN THIS MANIPULATION, I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE, IS THERE A RECORD, HAVE 402 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 THERE BEEN CASES IN WHICH THIS HAS COME UP IN THE MANY CASES THAT HAVE BEEN -- 403 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 2NDDFNS: THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE ALL BUT ADMITTED IT. 404 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: I HEARD WHAT HE SAID, I'M ASKING YOU HAVE THERE BEEN CASES THAT 405 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.881 DEMONSTRATE MANIPULATION. AMICUS CURIAE: I THINK WHAT YOU SEE HERE, 406 00:29:09.881 --> 00:29:09.896 JUDGE, IN THIS CASE, IS THE OFFICERS HAD INFORMATION ON THE 13TH, DID NOT GO 407 00:29:09.896 --> 00:29:09.896 GET A COMPLAINT TO THE 13TH, FOUND OUT WHEN MR. SIMS WAS GOING TO BE IN THE PAROLE 408 00:29:09.896 --> 00:29:09.943 OFFICER SO THEY CAN PLAN FOR AN ARREST AND WENT AND DID A WASHTSLESS ARREST, THEY 409 00:29:09.943 --> 00:29:09.943 DID NOT BRING HIM TO A POLICE STATION TO FILE A COMPLAINT, THEY BROUGHT HIM TO A 410 00:29:09.943 --> 00:29:09.943 SATELLITE OFFICE TO INTERROGATE HIM, I THINK YOU WERE INFER FROM THOSE SET OF 411 00:29:09.943 --> 00:29:09.959 FACTS THAT THE OVRSS DID MANIPULATE THE CHARGING DECISIONS IN ORDER TO 412 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 INTERROGATE THIS DEFENDANT WITHOUT ADVISING HIM OF THE CHARGES. 413 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 JUSTICE ALBIN: I'M TRYING TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SITUATION AND AGD. 414 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 THE POLICE OFFICERS, GIVEN THE HYPOTHETICAL, CAN GET A KIDNAPPING 415 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 COMPLAINT AND UNDER THAT HYPOTHETICAL CAN, I GUESS, COULD STILL QUESTION THE PERSON 416 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 ABOUT POTENTIAL MURDER OF THE BODY IS MISSING, SO MY QUESTION IS, HAS THE 417 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 SYSTEM BEEN OVERWHELMED WITH MOTIONS, HAS IT BEEN THROWN INTO TODAY DISARRAY. 418 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 AMICUS CURIAE: BASED ON WHAT I HEARD BEFORE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 419 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.959 OFFICE IT HAS NOT AND I AGREE WITH YOU, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO CONCEPTUAL 420 00:29:09.959 --> 00:29:09.974 DISTINCTION BETWEEN BEING ARRESTED ON THE POINT AND BEING ARRESTED ON A PROBABLE 421 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 CAUSE BY AN OFFICER IN TERMS OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH WHETHER THE CHARGES COULD BE 422 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 AMENDED, WHETHER THEY COULD BE UPGRADED, WHETHER THEY COULD BE DOWNGRADED, THAT 423 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 CAN HAPPEN IN BOTH CIRCUMSTANCES AND I AGREE WITH YOUR HONOR THAT THEY ARE THE SAME. 424 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. O'CONNOR DO YOU STANDBY THE LIMITS IN 425 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 THE OPINION. AMICUS CURIAE: I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY, 426 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 JUDGE, AND HERE'S WHY, FOR THE SAME REASON I SAID, AT THE TIME THE OFFICER MAKES THE 427 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.974 ARREST, HE OR SHE AT THAT MOECHLT MUST KNOW WHAT OFFENSE THEY ARE ARRESTING THE 428 00:29:09.974 --> 00:29:09.990 DEFENDANT FOR, AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT DISTINCTION ON WHETHER -- 429 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 JUSTICE PATTERSON: THEY MUST KNOW THE OFFENSE, THE SECOND OF THE ARREST, THERE'S A 430 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 SHOOTING, THERE ARE PEOPLE ALL IN THE AREA, WITNESSES ARE MAKING STATEMENTS, AN 431 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 OFFICER AREAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND MUST KNOW ULTIMATELY THIS IS GOING TO BE AN AGGRAVATED 432 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 MANSLAUGHTER. AMICUS CURIAE: NO, NO, YOU ADDED Z 433 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 ULTIMATELY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID, AT THE TIME HE MAKES THE ARREST HE HAS TO KNOW AT 434 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 THAT MOMENT WHAT HE'S ARRESTING HIM FOR, THOSE CHARGES CAN CHANGE, THEY CAN 435 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 CERTAINLY CHANGE AS THE CASE PROCEEDS, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISAGREEMENT ON 436 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 THAT, BUT AT THE MOMENT HE AREAS THE PERSON HE OR SHE HAS TO KNOW AT THAT MOMENT 437 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:09.990 WHAT HE'S ARRESTING THE PERSON FOR A-AND THAT IS THE INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO 438 00:29:09.990 --> 00:29:10.006 BE PROVIDED, WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO LOOK INTO A CRYSTAL BALL AND SAY LATER ON DOWN 439 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 THE ROAD THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO ADD THIS CHARGE OR DOWNGRADE THAT CHARGE, 440 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEEN ASKED IT'S AT THE MOMENT OF THE ARREST OR I THINK MORE 441 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 ACCURATELY AT THE MOMENT OF THE INTERROGATION. CHIEF 442 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 JUSTICE RABNER: ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? JUSTICE 443 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 LAVECCHIA: I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, COUNSEL. AMICUS CURIAE: 444 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 YES, YOUR HONOR. JUSTICE LAVECCHIA: MR. O'CONNOR, UNDER YOUR 445 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 POSITION DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ASKED WHAT AM I BEING ARRESTED 446 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.006 FOR OR NOT. AMICUS CURIAE: I DON'T THINK IT DOES, YOUR HONOR, 447 00:29:10.006 --> 00:29:10.021 BECAUSE I THINK THAT GOES TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD EARLIER IS THE -- YOU CAN'T PUT THIS 448 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 RIGHT ON HIM, THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED HAVING ENOUGH FORTITUDE TO 449 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 SAY WHAT AM I BEING ARRESTED FOR, IT'S THE SAME AS HIM SAYING WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE 450 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 MIRANDA BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT NOT TO TALK TO US SO WHY DO WE HAVE TO 451 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 GIVE THE WARNING, SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE DEFENDANT OR THE AREA TEASE ASKING OR 452 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 NOT ASKING WHY HE'S BEEN ARRESTED IS OF NO IMPORT. YOUR HONOR, AND 453 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 I JUST I REST IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, I REST ON THE 454 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:10.021 ARGUMENT IN MY PAPERS ON THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE. THE COURT: ALL 455 00:29:10.021 --> 00:29:13.021 RIGHT, THANK YOU.