This article is reproduced without permission under the fair use doctrine. Originally published online at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051027/REPOSITORY/510270313/1001/NEWS01
Copyright 1997-2005 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot.
A lawyer representing one of the two traveling magazine salesmen still awaiting trial on charges of raping a local woman says his client's interview with Concord police detectives should be suppressed because they coerced the salesman with promises of favorable treatment and lies about nonexistent evidence.
Detectives have acknowledged that they told Cassidy Coburn, 20, of Utah, that the victim was injured and that they had copies of her distressed e-mails to friends, when neither was true.
A prosecutor with the Merrimack County Attorney's office has objected to the request and told the court that Coburn not only agreed to be interviewed but told detectives at the end of their meeting that they had treated him fairly and promised him nothing.
Furthermore, prosecutor David Rotman told the court, Coburn couldn't have been pressured into an untruthful "confession" because he maintained his innocence and said only that his sales partners may have taken the group sex too far.
Courts have allowed the police to misstate the extent of their evidence during interviews as a way to assess the truthfulness of someone's statements. But state law requires that a defendant's statements be fully voluntary and not the result of threats or even implied promises.
Coburn is scheduled to stand trial early next year on charges he raped a woman in March in her Concord apartment while selling magazines door to door. His colleague, Joseph Haniffy, 25, of Massachusetts was convicted in September of raping the woman, but his verdict is being reviewed by a judge because jurors inadvertently saw evidence they shouldn't have during deliberations. The third member of the crew, Christopher Armstrong, 24, of Arkansas was scheduled to go to trial this month, but his lawyer has asked for an extension. The salesmen all say the sex was consensual.
Coburn and Armstrong first met the woman, then 19, when they knocked on her apartment door in late March. After drinking and partying with her for nearly two hours, Coburn invited Haniffy, who had been elsewhere driving sales teams around the city. According to the police, Haniffy forced the woman to perform oral sex on him, and the other two raped her.
Ted Barnes, the Concord lawyer representing Coburn, has already asked a judge to move Coburn's case out of Merrimack County because he believes Rotman will misuse testimony Coburn was forced to give at Haniffy's trial. (Judge Edward Fitzgerald, who hasn't ruled on that request, agreed to let Coburn testify at Haniffy's trial as long as prosecutors didn't use Coburn's statements at his own trial.)
In his current filing, Barnes wants Coburn's statements to the police during the 75-minute interview barred from evidence. He alleged in his filing that the police persuaded Coburn to talk about the March evening with the alleged victim by heavily suggesting that his life would be easier if he cooperated. The detectives, Sean Ford and Mark Dumas, referred to the game "musical chairs" at least six times, Barnes said, suggesting to Coburn that if he didn't talk he might be left taking full responsibility for the woman's alleged assault.
The detectives also interrupted Coburn numerous times and spoke in such vague terms that it's unclear if Coburn knew what he was responding to, Barnes wrote. In addition, the detectives told Coburn they didn't care if the sex with the woman was consensual, according to Barnes.
Coburn's full statement has not been made public, but in the sections quoted in court filings, Coburn initially said that only Haniffy and Armstrong had sex with the woman. Eventually, he told the detectives that he also participated but that he left the room the moment he realized the woman became opposed to the sex.
Barnes doesn't believe jurors should hear any of it. "Mr. Coburn's statement was involuntary," he wrote in his court filing. "(It was) the product of promises, threats and lies, such that it must necessarily be deemed constitutionally unreliable in a manner detrimental to the defendant."
In his response, Rotman didn't dispute that the police lied but said that the lies were "minimal" and that the practice has been upheld by several courts. He also said there is no evidence that the detectives, who were unarmed and not in uniforms, threatened Coburn or coerced him with promises.
(Annmarie Timmins can be reached at 224-5301, ext. 323, or by e-mail at user atimmins at domain cmonitor.com.)
| Topic FidelityReaderServiceConcordMonitor20051027 . { Edit | Ref-By | Attach | Diffs | r1.1 } |
|
Revision r1.1 - 27 Oct 2005 - 16:45 by EliMantel
Privacy Policy |
Copyright © 2000-2005 by the contributing authors.
All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors. Collect email addresses here. Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback. |