Chuck Turner the embattled Boston City Counsellor has weighed in on the ongoing corruption scandal brewing. His Attorneys have made allegations of Police misconduct in not reading him Miranda.
His attorney Brian Wilson in his affidavid filed in Boston Federal court stated, “The FBI could have arrested Mr. Turner on the day he was questioned but chose not to. Instead, the agents went to speak with Mr. Turner with a specific agenda; that is, they wanted to try to make Mr. Turner contradict himself so that they could file additional charges,”.
The Miranda case (1966) being brand new and all, I can understand where they would forget that half the calculation involves the party having to be in custody or a police dominated atmosphere where the Officer has fixed it in their own mind to arrest the subject. Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 213, 218 (2002). To determine whether the defendant was in custody, ‘we examine four factors: (1) the place of the interrogation; (2) whether the police conveyed any belief or opinion that the person being questioned was a suspect; (3) whether the questioning [was] aggressive or informal; and (4) whether the suspect was free to end the interview by leaving the place of interrogation, or whether the interview ended with the defendant’s arrest.’ Commonwealth v. Murphy, 442 Mass. 485, 493 (2004), citing Commonwealth v. Sneed, 440 Mass. 216, 220 (2003) (custody determination depends on the ‘objective circumstances of the interrogation’).
Turners attorneys in their own motion state that the intent of the police was not to arrest Turner, but to use the answers gathered to impeach his credibility later. Kind of self defeating and a desperate reach at best.
Attorney Ronald A. Sellon