The testimonies given by the prosecution and defense three weeks ago in the pretrial hearings of Brian T. Shaw, the former Syracuse University student charged with murder in the second degree, play host to numerous contradicting details that could mean the suppression of a critical piece of the prosecution’s evidence against him.

Shaw was arrested the night of March 23, 2005, in connection with the death of Chiarra Seals, the mother of his 4-year-old daughter. Three pairs of detectives interrogated him throughout the night. The interrogation began around 10:30 p.m. and ended at approximately 4:30 a.m. However, the testimonies of the detectives and Shaw differ in several ways, and those differences could mean the world of difference for Shaw.

The purpose of Shaw’s pretrial hearings is to determine whether or not the oral confession he gave to police that night could be used during his trial. The confession is being questioned by the defense on grounds that Shaw was allegedly not read his rights at the appropriate time nor given access to an attorney.

According to Syracuse Police Detective Eric Carr’s testimony three weeks ago, Shaw was read his Miranda rights at the beginning of questioning, but insists he was not made aware of his rights until closer to 4:30 a.m., when Sgt. Joel Cordone read them to him.

Cordone, according to Shaw’s testimony, read Shaw his rights in response to his second request for a lawyer.

Shaw said he wasn’t given the opportunity to speak to an attorney on either request. After 20 minutes with Cordone and Detective Steve Kilburn, Shaw requested to speak to two detectives who had previously questioned him that night, Patrick Boynton and Brian Fougnier. It was then, according to the detectives’ testimony, that Shaw finally offered his oral confession.

Jenny Roberts, an assistant professor in the College of Law and director of the Criminal Law Clinic, said in pretrial hearings the judge acts as a fact-finder, and it is his or her decision what evidence is used and what evidence is suppressed. In the case of Shaw, what it comes down to is whom Judge Joseph E. Fahey finds more credible, she said.

‘If the issue in a suppression hearing is whether or not someone’s rights are read or whether or not they asked for an attorney … then the judge presiding over the evidence is going to take that and any other evidence into consideration,’ she said.

According to Michael Schwartz, an assistant professor in the College of Law, race may also come into play when the judge is deliberating whether or not to suppress the confession.

‘There is plenty of historical evidence to show courts are more than willing to believe the police over a black defendant,’ Schwartz said in an e-mail. ‘It is not the stuff of fiction; there is almost a presumption when dealing with police witnesses, that they must be telling the truth, and it makes the work of defending criminal defendants harder.’

Roberts, however, said it is up to the defense attorney to bring up evidence of mistreatment of the defendant by the detectives in order for the judge to consider the difference of race.

‘Just the fact that he is African-American and the detectives are white certainly could be a factor, but I don’t think any judge is going to take that simple fact of race into account without any other evidence,’ Roberts said.

The discrepancy between the testimonies of Shaw and the detectives that questioned him revolve around the time Shaw was read his Miranda rights. According the testimony of Detective Carr, who initiated the interrogation, Shaw was read the Miranda warnings prior to questioning. However, Shaw claimed in his testimony that he was not read his rights until much later.

Schwartz said police may arrest an individual and place him or her in a jail cell without reading the rights, but ‘it is when they want to question the person that the obligation to read Miranda is triggered,’ he said.

This would mean Shaw’s testimony that his Miranda rights were not offered until hours after the interrogation began holds significant ground because he was allegedly not read his rights until approximately five hours after the interrogation began, Schwartz said.

Because Shaw was allegedly denied access to an attorney could also add to his defense’s case that his confession should be thrown out.

‘When a defendant makes a request for a lawyer, all questioning must stop until a lawyer is on the scene. The fact that Shaw made two requests for a lawyer and was questioned for twenty minutes indicates a violation of his rights, assuming that is what really happened,’ Schwartz said. ‘My understanding is that Miranda does not legitimize a confession obtained by questioning a defendant who has repeatedly asked for a lawyer.’

The final decision on whether or not to allow the confession as evidence is, said Gary Sommer, director of Student legal Services. It’s ultimately ‘up to the judge, he is to decide if the person was not read the Miranda warnings or if the interrogation has gone improperly. Then he says whether the confession is useable or not,’ he said.

However, even if the confession is thrown out, it does not guarantee acquittal, or even the reduction of charges for Shaw. Sommer said although a confession is an important part of any case, ‘it really depends on how strong the district attorney’s case is and whether they have other evidence besides the confession.’

Schwartz said Shaw is still subject to ‘the physical and circumstantial evidence the police have gathered. If there’s a strong nexus between that evidence and the defendant, dismissing the confession won’t necessarily destroy the case against the defendant.’

Shaw’s next hearing is scheduled for today, where Judge Fahey is expected to announce a trial date.

Published on October 6, 2005 at 12:00 pm