8.Statement Admissibility Argument and Ruling
39 linesRICK HUBBARD: Your Honor, I'd move that the statement was voluntarily given, that there was no interrogation, that a Miranda was not necessary, that it would be admissible.
THE COURT: Mr. Young?
BOYD YOUNG: Judge, we would object under our previous arguments regarding the circumstances surrounding voluntariness of all of the statements in addition to those arguments. At the time of these statements, all of the -- Your Honor is well aware of all of the events that had happened up until that point and including that a conversation that was had between Detective Creech and Mr. Jones at the Lexington County Detention Center the day before. He was then transported to the South Carolina Department of Corrections in a new unit, a maximum security housing unit inside of the Kirkland prison. The evidence, even in the light most favorable to the State is that he's in there talking to officers about what's going on. And then when Lieutenant Pressley comes in and asks him what happened. Lieutenant Pressley also testified that their normal procedure of intake is to ask inmates coming in what happened, how did they get here. That question elicits an incriminating response, Mr. Jones is in custody, he's in a prison. He wasn't Mirandized and therefore, those statements are involuntary and should not be admissible.
RICK HUBBARD: Your Honor, what they elicited from Lieutenant Pressley, it might be customary to ask what happened. He never said he did it with this inmate. In fact, he said -- when he started getting upset when that door closed, he just used his CIT skills to let him talk it out.
THE COURT: Yeah, all right. My ruling is under Jackson v. Denno, considering the two officers testimonies during the intake into the supermax area, removed from the van, placed in the sally port and going inside, several officers in and around. And there was a discussion about the transport and how it was handled. It doesn't seem to me, in the observation of the testimony presented that what happened from Officer Pressley was intended to what happened, what did you do the night of the murders. It doesn't seem like that's how the conversation was flowing. Him voluntarily continuing on at length, this last officer said that he just kept going on and on and on. It seems voluntary under all the circumstances of that interaction. It wasn't an interview, it was intake. The State would be allowed to use it.
RICK HUBBARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We'll stand down until 1:30.
RICK HUBBARD: There is going to be one other issue, just so you know, about the phone call. I will get with the Defense and see if there's anything that --
THE COURT: Okay.
RICK HUBBARD: We can work out.
THE COURT: You all can still address that. Mr. Young, you've got another issue?
BOYD YOUNG: I was just trying to get my objection to the Court's ruling on the record.
THE COURT: Oh, you had it. I mean, you argued and I ruled, that's -- you're on the record. We don't have to say everything three times.
BOYD YOUNG: Evidently sometimes if I argue again, it --
THE COURT: You all are all protected redundantly.
RICK HUBBARD: We're starting back at what time?
THE COURT: 1:30.
RICK HUBBARD: Yes, sir.
(Whereupon, a lunch break was taken.)
THE COURT: Mr. Hubbard.
RICK HUBBARD: I have got a sixteen minute phone call from the Defendant. It has already been identified. There is an unredacted call that we don't think can come in. But Amber Kyzer identified the voices on it, it was Tim Jones, the Defendant, calling his father and aunt.
THE COURT: I remember that.
RICK HUBBARD: We had a redacted portion. They are regenerating that right now. The large part of the front part of that conversation is just chitter chat, talking about stuff. The part that we have redacted down to is where Mr. Jones talks about what happened that night where he expresses his opinion of what happened, what he did. It is something that, then if the tape continues to play he starts talking about, they are talking about consequences where he gets life, death and he talks about what happens if he goes to the Department of Mental Health, how he can be back on the streets again. Obviously you have ruled on that so we want to cut all of that out. That would be the redacted version, they are working on that. I can go ahead and put up two witnesses and then we can take that up, if Your Honor wants to hear the unredacted and then hear the redacted and see if that if fair. If the Defense has something else they want to put, include with it, I think still has to be subject to your prior ruling.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Young, I guess.
BOYD YOUNG: Your Honor, I haven't heard -- I haven't heard the redaction yet. I think the Court needs to hear the full version and, obviously, we would need to hear the redaction and figure out --
RICK HUBBARD: I think you'd need to hear --
BOYD YOUNG: -- what our objections are.
THE COURT: You don't think I need to listen to all the chit-chat?
BOYD YOUNG: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
RICK HUBBARD: It's sixteen minutes, I think. Maybe, just a little over. The redacted portion would be much shorter. Just a few minutes.
THE COURT: So what's you all's take on the whole thing, anyway?
BOYD YOUNG: We think, if they want to play it, they should play the whole thing.
RICK HUBBARD: We think subject to your ruling, we can't.
THE COURT: All right. Then I'll -- we'll take it up then.
RICK HUBBARD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury. (Whereupon, the jury came into open court at approximately 1:30 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. Call your witness, please.
RICK HUBBARD: Thank you, Your Honor. The State calls Travis Pressley.