“Did you get the guy I sold it [crack] to?”
Depending upon the context, this statement could be an admission by a pusher that he sold drugs, or it could be a rhetorical question by someone who denied selling drugs.
In the eyes of the state attorney’s office, it turned out to be such a convincing piece of evidence that it disregarded the other problems it had with the case and proceeded to trial.
The statement, and the story which follows, should serve as an important reminder that people accused of breaking the law should remain silent until they speak to an attorney.
John Doe was arrested for selling crack. The arrest was made days, perhaps weeks, after the alleged sale was made to a confidential informant.
The police department did not want to “burn” or reveal the identity of their confidential informat until he had helped the department make a number of “controlled buys,” so they did not arrest the seller immediately after the transaction was over. Had they done so, there would have been no doubt as to the identity of the seller. Because, however, the department opted to use the informant to make more cases, the department would have to rely upon the informant’s testimony as to the identity of the seller.
The informant identified John Doe as the seller and days later the department obtained a warrant for Mr. Doe’s arrest.
When he was apprehended and told why he was being arrested, Mr. Doe asked, “Did you get the guy I sold it [crack] to?”
Mr. Doe was being sarcastic. He denied selling crack to the informant, and this was his way of arguing his innocence. After all, if he didn’t sell crack to anyone, then there shouldn’t be a buyer. Mr. Doe believed his rhetorical question was the logical linchpin that would prove his innocence. In the minds of the arresting officers, however, Mr. Doe just confessed to the crime and dutifully noted the “confession” in their arrest reports.
The defense filed motions in limine to suppress the statement, arguing that due to the vague nature of the statement, its prejudicial nature outweighed its probative value. Fortunately for Mr. Doe, the court agreed.
Although Mr. Doe was subsequently acquitted of a second degree felony, for which he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 15 years in prison, had he to do it all over again, I suspect he would have simply kept his mouth shut when arrested.
This “confession” convinced the arresting officers and the state attorney’s office that they had arrested the right guy. Never mind the fact that there were severe problems with the credibility of the confidential informant and the identity of the seller. This confession so blinded both the officers and the state attorney’s office to the evidentiary problems with the case, that they took a bad case to trial.
Fortunately for Mr. Doe, he was acquitted of all charges, but had he simply kept his mouth shut, the state attorney’s office may have looked at the evidence in the case a little harder, and dropped or dismissed the charges short of trial.
The lesson from Mr. Doe’s case is clear: when faced with accusations of criminal wrong-doing, people should exercise their Constitutional right against self-incrimination and remain silent until they have had an opportunity to speak with legal counsel.
