Opinion
I.D. No. 0109004876
September 3, 2002
R. David Favata, Esquire Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, DE.
David J. J. Facciollo, Esq., Wilmington, DE.
Dear Counsel:
Defendant has moved to suppress certain statements made to officers of the Newark Police Department and the Delaware State Police on the night and morning following his arrest.
Defendant asserts that his waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing and voluntary because he was tired and did not have food or water during the interviews. Defendant also asserts that he was intimidated into implicating himself by co-defendant James Brooks. The Court finds that each of these assertions are without merit.
Several statements were taken from the defendant following his arrest. The first statement was not recorded either on audio or video tape and exists only in the notes of the interviewing officer. The statement lasted approximately ten minutes and was preceded by Miranda warnings. There is no evidence in the record to support any contention that defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was other than knowing and voluntary as to this statement.
Thereafter the defendant was interviewed on video tape from approximately 2:00 a.m. until shortly after 3:00 a.m. and again from approximately 8:00 a.m. until 10:45 a.m.
During the course of those interviews the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights twice and the Court concludes from a view of the tapes that the defendant fully understood and voluntarily waived those rights. Moreover, throughout the early a.m. interview the defendant appears to be fully alert and understanding of the circumstances.
During the interview commencing around 8:00 a.m. the defendant appears to be fully alert during the early portions of the interview but evidences some tiredness toward the end. Even so, the Court cannot conclude that the defendant did not know what he was doing when he gave this interview. The defendant's contentions regarding a lack of understanding of his Miranda rights and the voluntariness of his statements are rejected.
With regard to defendant's claim of intimidation, the Court finds it to lack credibility. The defendant contends that a co-defendant James Brooks intimidated him into implicating himself in the robberies with which defendant is charged. Defendant's statements, while they incriminate the defendant, do not exonerate Brooks and the Court simply finds it fanciful to suppose that Brooks would threaten Bordley into implicating himself without exonerating Brooks. This claim is also rejected. The motion to suppress is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.