Georgia criminal defense attorney wins suppression of client's involuntary confession
The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently upheld a trial court’s ruling which suppressed a defendant’s statement due to being involuntary. The court reasoned that the interviewing officer told that the defendant that he had committed theft by taking rather than armed robbery which induced the defendant to make the statement.
In State v. Klepper, the defendant, Klepper, was indicted for armed robbery in Fulton County. On the day in question, Klepper was suspected of committing an armed robbery in a store parking lot. An officer saw Klepper in his vehicle detained him. Officer Orrick, the investigative officer, then arrived at the scene with the alleged robbery victim. The alleged victim was able to positively identify Klepper as the perpetrator. Klepper and Orrick, who knew each other from college, began a personal conversation. During this conversation, Orrick brought up the issue of whether the alleged crime was theft by taking instead of armed robbery.
The original officer then drove Klepper to jail. During the ride, the officer stated that Orrick would probably charge Klepper with armed robbery. Klepper responded that Orrick told him it was theft by taking. Upon arriving at jail, Klepper wrote a handwritten statement in which he admitted to putting his fist under his shirt and telling the alleged victim to hand over his or her money. Klepper also wrote, “This is not an armed robbery, this is theft by taking.” On another page, Klepper had written but struck through “Please help me as much as [you] can.”
Klepper’s attorney moved to suppress these statements as involuntary and the trial court agreed even though Orrick denied telling Klepper that his actions constituted theft by taking. Upon appeal, the state argued that the proffered evidence only showed a hope of benefit that began in Klepper’s own head. However, it is well established law that for a statement to be admissible it must be made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear if injury. The state bears the burden of showing that a statement is voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial court considers the totality of the circumstances when deciding if the statement is voluntary. On appeal, a trial court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
When the appellate court reviewed the evidence, it found that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court noted that 1.) Orrick admitted to starting the conversation concerning the lesser offense 2.) Klepper told the original officer of the conversation with Orrick and 3.) Klepper admitted to the lesser offense in his written statement. As a result, Klepper’s custodial statements were suppressed.
Our criminal defense lawyers have won numerous suppression hearings due to police officers or prosecutors making promises or threats to defendants accused of serious crimes. In our experience, there is almost always an issue of admissibility any time law enforcement garners a statements or confession through promises, manipulation, threats or physical abuse. A good criminal defense lawyer will challenge the admissibility of a confession or incriminating statement by conducting a thorough investigation including where and under what conditions the statements were given, the length of time the defendant was interrogated, what promises or threats were made, and whether the defendant was intoxicated or mentally impaired.
