legal process and justice

Edit: This post may sound emotional but it is not intended to be. I was not 'impassioned' when I wrote it. I just wanted to list several points.
==============

First of all it seems to me that the police should be able to gather enough additional evidence to convict this guy. So his confession isn't admissible. So what? What if he hadn't confessed? The police and prosecutor would be in the same position that they are in now. They would still have to build a case without his confession. I don't see any problem with that.

As to the fact that his confession before he saw a lawer being inadmissible, that is a mistake make by the police department. It is conceivable that the accused person just blurted out his confession but it is trivially easy for the police to just ignore this. The fact that they asked him to show where the body was before an attorney for the accused person arrived was a procedural mistake.

We have got to cling to the procedural mandates that ensure our protection from police torturing a confession out of a suspect. The exclusionary rule which is the basis of the Miranda rights cannot be dismissed when "we know that this person is guilty". That is not the way our system works. The police can always claim that they "know that this or that person is guilty" whether they have evidence or a confession or whatever. The police can always beat a confession out of a suspect. The exclusionary rule and the Miranda rights are a protection of all people suspected by the police of committing a crime. Sometimes the police make mistakes. Sometimes they accuse the wrong person. So, even when a person confesses after having asked for an attorney and before the attorney is made available that has got to be discarded as evidence. Even when the person demonstrates how the crime was committed and where, in this case, the dead body is located that fact has got to be discarded because the police messed up. We cannot afford to allow the police to make procedural mistakes and allow the evidence gathered from those procedural mistakes to be used in court. That is a how the judiciary protects innocent and guilty people alike from procedural misconduct by the police.

If you want to get angry then get angry at the police who didn't follow their procedures. They are the ones that are responsible for this confession being inadmissible. They are the ones that are responsible for the fact that the suspect showed the police where to find the body is not admissible in court. The police messed up, not our judicial protections.

He can have doctors prove he was not of sound mind and body when breaching his rights. That is why you are always asked if you understand your rights.

Whether he gets away on THAT or not, he will have a solid foundation to plead insanity even though it was without dout rpemeditated and he was well aware that it was wrong when he did it.

The sanity loopholes in the system are the real problem. ANYONE who commits murder of a 9 year old is insane, do we let them ALL off then? No, we should be held acouuntable unless it can be proven that the accused is mentally incapable f determining right from wrong EVER, not just the temp insanity plea. We added it to resolve issues where really disturbed people with serious mental deficiency didn't end up in a jail with a regular population.

It has been dragged out and abused by legal teams veer since, a loophole is a scapegoat.

I think the guy is the sickest and creepiest man to walk the Earth in 2005. He should be put into generla population in a medium security prison where he can have a taste of his own medicine. Convicts in for robbery and manslaughetr don't take too well to kiddie killers, in fact, that's the bottom of the barrel in jail, women and children are a no no even for those guys.

Instead it will be the looney country club and the real mentally ill patients that actually need the attention will not get it because it's full of wannabe nutbags. It's lose lose lose for everyone but the convicted.

Tell you what, drive him up to Canada and let him walk free, for a few minutes anyway, we'll sort him out.

is when there will be evidance like this that is thrown out because of minor technicalities with no malice intended.

Later, if the individual does get off on a technicality then all the evidence that was "stricken from the record" should be fully released. You have video of someone confessing or committing a crime? Give it to the media or a blogger or what not. Let the WORLD know what that person did and HOW they got away with it. I am sure when they find they can't live their lives in peace there will be final justice, with hope from their own hands. RIP.

if they don't move the trial...and even then, he'll be a target if the inmates find out who he is elsewhere.

Three things you don't want to be in prison:

- A man who beats women or kids
- A man who rapes women
- A man who molests kids

You'll get killed real quick

Certainly he can request an attorney, they are not required to present an attorney in 10 minutes though. Even in a fast system, it take take a day or so to get initial legal contact and then weeks to prepare the accused for questioning with a lawyer present. DURING this time, the police can try and coerce information from him, they can request a polygraph test, they can request DNA etc. It is up to HIM as the accused to withold his confession and stay put until his attorney is present.

Just because you request an attorney, it doesn't mean the police can't TRY and question you, that's the point. As long as the police had placed a request for an attorney, whatever happens after that is up to him.

If I was to be taken in and requested an attorney before answering questions, they may try and tell me that an attorney won't help at his point, they have unsurmountable evidece against me, they can even lie and tell me someone ele has already come forward and pointed me out as the offender.

It is up to ME to stay silent and NOT answer further questions, submit fluid samples etc.

Otherwise everyone would just clam up and many cases would be let off due to a silver tongueed attorney haveing all the say. The police are well withing their rights to TRY and obtain information, even after you have ASKED for an attorney as long as they act upon your request.

Now if I ask them for my attorney, and they say, sure but that's not gonna help you now, we have this and that against you, then I decide to fess up, my testimony is 100% admissible. It's up to the accused to practice their rights, not for the police to insist upon or enforce them. He could have just not said anythign until he spoke with an attorney, but he didn't. HE chose to speak freely.

He ASKED, they are obligated to make some movement toward getting one for hi, but in the meantie they canstill push and prod him for information, EVERYONE says tey want their lawer when arrested, only a small percenage actually end up speaking with a lawyer, most are just shooting their mouth off (you know the old police brutality, false arrest BS you hear from anyone who is handcuffed).

He SHOULD have just simply practiced his rights and NOT said anything until he was provided with an attorney, he gave up his Miranda rights by speaking freely and at will. The police aren't obligated to stop questioning him when he request an attorney, but HE is obligated to stop answering if he wants to retain his rights.

IF the information was stricken it may be due to the person stating they were not of sound mind and body and could not speak rationally without legal advice.

In that case, his words would be moot and considered complete BS. IF you propsed this as evidence that defamated his character (especially if he was let off) you would be libel for slander.

sorry to be so adamant, but I deal with slander and libility cases someitmes several times a year and this is a VERY tightly regulated issue.

The police don't have to stop asking questions. They can hold you in an interrogation room and ask you all the questions they want, as long as your request is being fulfilled in a timely fashion.

It is up to the detinee to keep his mouth shut until a lawyer arrives to cousel him or control the police questions.

It is 100% dependant on HOW the judge dismisses the evidence.

Ex.: If it is stricken for being heresay, it is defamation to further print it.

If someone is charged with child molestation and released due to insubstantial evidence, it is not okay to start pulicizing the evidence provided.

I [b]hope[/b] it might have been different.

The original UK equivalent of the Miranda was:

"You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you."

Very differently than the US, there was - and is - no requirement for the suspect to affirm that he or she understands the caution, and many law enforcement staff do not ask this to prevent a suspect from delaying the investigation by wilfully claiming not to understand the caution.

The Criminal Justice Act 1994 amended (abolished?) the right to silence by allowing a jury to draw its own conclusion in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something and then later produces an explanation. Basically, the jury can, if it wants, infer that the accused made up the explanation at a later date and completely disregard it if they want. Inferences are usually made from a refusal to account for objects in the posession of the accused or marks on his or her body. When this act came in, the stated idea was to stop the existing law being exploited by 'professional' criminals remaining persistently silent while innocent people rarely exercised their right. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

The new caution is:

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence."

Because we don't have a written constitution there has not been the huge quantity of specific rulings such as there have been on the 5th Amendment that have so defined the police's procedures in the US.

I think what is needed is defined [b]sensible and fair[/b] police procedures with severe consequences for the police if they transgress but a way of avoiding the wholesale suppression of evidence such as there seems to have resulted in this case from police error. Law it might be, justice it isn't.

I think that if the murderer in question had asked for a lawyer in the UK then it would have been up to him to keep his own mouth shut until his lawyer arrived - he's been told he can keep quiet if he wants. If he confesses and then retracts his confession then the jury still get to hear it and can make a decision. But then we don't have [b]nearly[/b] as many lawyers...

Just my ?2,000.02p worth (inc lawyer's fee)

but being insane, or not of sound mind, is not legally a detriment to being found guilty. The knowing, and the knowing of rightness are all that is required to qualify being held accountable. In other words, clinical insanity and legal insanity are two different things.

Yep, trying to hide the crime is very strong evidence that he is legally sane.

First off, until the judge/jury has ruled one way or another, the accused is presumed innocent. And that requires equal treatment under the law. We can't bend the rules, or they are no longer rules.

Miranda was created for a reason. Even though the physical side of abuse is diminished, there is still a lot of psychological pressure used by police on suspects. There have been countless incidents where confessions came out, later to be contradicted by physical evidence.

Canada doesn't have Miranda, and we have had our fair share of coerced confessions and murder convictions for people who were exonerated by DNA evidence. Even with Miranda the system isn't perfect.

As much as I have no sympathy for murderers and sex offenders, I also don't want to see the innocent convicted - thats a huge crime as well.

James

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/couey.case/index.html

Evidently, his confession has been thrown out. They say they have enough evidence. But I can see if this guy gets a good lawyer, because of rules of discovery, that he could possibly get the evidence they have thrown out. They had searched around the home he was staying in and never found anything outside and that was where the girl was buried.

Oh well...let's see if the criminal justice system punishes the criminal or the people this time.

While I still haven't found that they have decided to throw it out yet;
I have found some more info with more detail of the transcript.

[u]They also state;[/u]

After being told by Couey that he knew nothing about Jessica Lunsford's disappearance, Grace asks him if he would take a lie detector test. Couey replied, [i]"I guess. I'm just ? I want a lawyer, you know."[/i] He adds, [i]"I want a lawyer here present. I want to talk to a lawyer cause I mean ? if people trying to accuse something I didn't do. I didn't do it. I ain't, you know ? ."[/i]

Grace responds by saying, [i]"Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on ? so if we were to do a lie detector test, you'd want to get a lawyer for that?"[/i] Couey replies, [i]"I want to talk to a lawyer first."[/i]

But the law in question will be dependant on the states decision regarding a former case;

[i]"1981 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Arizona. Simply put, the ruling says if anyone asks for an attorney during an interview, they can't be questioned further unless a lawyer is present or they resume talking with investigators."[/i]

So I guess the question is around whether his request for a lawyer was clearly in reference to 'IF he was to take a lie detector test' and even then, he did resume talking with investigators, which was the exception offered in the 1981 ruling stated above. So as I guessed before, it seems that in his states it is the same as here; IF you request a lawyer, you are supposed to shut up until one is present. If you continue to speak out, then you have clearly decided to give up that right, especially after stating you understand your rights, which were read to him several times and he agreed he understod them.

he asked for an attorney before the topic of a lie detector was even brought up.

Therefore, they did not provide him with counsel upon request and henceforth did not provide him with timely protection from self-incrimination.

If process would have been followed and they would have stopped questioning and acquired his public defender, there would be no question about whether or not it was admissable.

However, State Attorneys and other legal professionals have doubts about what the sheriff's investigators did. If it was not the case, there would be no news coverage of it.

I know the kid was 14, but come on, this person was in a position of authority over this boy.

I just read an article today about author John Irving (Hotel New Hampshire, Garp, Cider House Rules) who was 11 when an older woman(early 20s) initiated his first experience. According to the author it really messed him up.

I know you were being funny, but as my son is 11, I don't particularly find it funny.

James

But...let's face it...big difference between when you were a boy and nowadays. Hell, they're even way more bold now than when I was a kid.

Yes, I was being humourous about it...but at the same time you should realize there is a big difference between 11 and 14...mostly being...11 is elementary school...14 is in or right before high school (depending on the school class structure). Most boys are physiologically developed by 14...not 11.

I'm not saying it was right either...just that...I don't know too many guys who were my age that if approached by a teacher like Debra LaFave would have said no to her. She's a gorgeous woman, even tho she is sick in the head.

Anyways...don't take it personal...it wasn't your son...he wasn't 11...and she's in jail so she won't be doing it anymore (unless they screw up her case too).

Considering that it is not a violation of due process, I believe he can be held until an attorney can be found.

The volunteering of info is admissable, so hang him high.

http://justiceflorida.justia.com/criminal-lawyer-attorney-1013424.html

That is the site...and it pretty cut and dry states:

"If I am in custody, how do I assert my right to remain silent?

A suspect who has been arrested need only say I want to speak with an attorney or I have nothing to say now. If the police continue to question the suspect, the police have violated the suspect's 5th Amendment rights. Anything that the suspect says after the violation is inadmissible as evidence in court."

OK...so...guys...there's your proof...from an attorney in west palm.

When I was 17, I had kind of a teacher thing going for a few weeks, bit of a playful one-nighter after a post-soccer game party, turned petty fling, I'm sure I thought it had potential (even though she was married to an elementary school guidance counsellor) but my ex-girlfriend found out she was preggo and things did a quick 180 in my world.

It's just one more reason I decided to raise a kid and try to work at the same time instead of going to school.

I've never said I thought the law was right to dismiss his confession...just that the law states his rights were violated.

Personally, I think Mark Lunsford (dad of the girl who was killed) should get the option to do with him as he pleases...whether that's a bullet through the head, nails in a baseball bat, blanket parties for a month, etc...he should get to say what that man's punishment is...not a box of jurors who have no idea of the pain that man as been caused.

To me once that guy said he did it and how he did it...and then she was discovered in the fashion he described...he's guilty...whether he was on drugs or not...whether he was the direct assailant or an accomplice or accessory to the action...he needs to pay the price.

You are right, they can't 'legally' drill a confession out of him and ignore requests to get a lawyer, and I have never said otherwise, butt you are missing the key part of the copy here:

-"there can be no [b]questioning[/b]."
-"designed "to assure that the individual's right to [b]choose between silence and speech[/b] remains unfettered throughout the [b]interrogation process[/b]."
-once an accused invokes his right to counsel, [b]all questioning must cease[/b] and the accused is [b]not subject to further interrogation[/b] until counsel has been provided.
-a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further [b]police-initiated custodial interrogation[/b] even if he has been advised of his rights."

As you can clearly see here, al lof these cases stop further interrogation and questioning by the police.

This does NOT in any way, say that he cannot speak freely after being placed under arrest and even after requesting counsel. It says he canot be interrogated or questioned after requesting an attorney, OFFERING information is fine, he just can't be forced to do so. But again, they do it on a daily basis and get away with it all the time. Believe me, I have been arrested more than my fair share of times and in every case, It wasn't until someone recognized my name and realized my brother was a fairly prominent attorney that I was allowed rights that they had previously ignored.

-Phone call? When they are ready, paperwork and booking drunks comes first.
-Call a Lawyer? Once you "settle down" to thier satisfaction (or when they get around to it) and they feel they cannot hold you off any longer.

RIghts? Sure. As long as you can prove you deserve them.

that is the question.

Merriam-Webster defines "interrogation" as:

1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response

so if Couey was questioned in *any way* after his request for counsel, then under the 5th Amendment *and* Edwards v. Arizona he would be considered to have had his rights broken based on the decision stating:

"when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights."

It's not like they stopped asking, then Couey just said "OH I WANT TO CONFESS!!!!". They continued to ask him questions both directly and indirectly related to the activities of the criminal offense.

OK...now...where's my bar certification?

Except I don't trust you or any 12 people to decide when somebody "obviously" committed murder. Aside from my own desire not to be put to death due to a false conviction, I'm suspicious of people's ability to distinguish between "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "beyond their personal limits of nausea". It's always the most gruesome crimes that get the pro-death folks the loudest, and it's true that the more vicious the crime the more the criminal deserves to pay. But [i]I just do not trust my community to refrain from finding a defendant guilty until there is no reasonable doubt.[/i] I don't want it on my conscience when the wrong guy gets fried, just because [i]somebody[/i] has to pay.

Prisons should be work camps, not summer camps, not death camps.

Jump up and down, if you rattle (or if it falls out of your butt), you know where it is.

Interrogation, will not be defined by Websters in a trial. It will be deemed by the transript and STYLE of questioning used, open, closed, reflective etc.

He clearly stated in one incident that IF he was to take a lie detector test he would want a lawyer present. This is not requesting a lawyer immediately. The next morning, he waived his right to counsel in COURT, he was later questioned and took a polygraph that day, after clearly waiving his right in front of a judge.

Until the ENTIRE transcript is released, which it rarely is even long after the case, it is impossible to pass judgement whether his rights were ignored or not. You really think this media based truth-spinning and presumptive BS only occurs in the political arena?

What we are getting are such miniscule snippets of the real story it isn't funny, just ways to create some controversy and interest in the story.

To build YOUR case on such inconclusive and unconfirmed comments is not exactly gonna see you becoming a lawyer anytime soon, sorry mate. You need more than that.

You are right, the question is, Was he or was he not interrogated? BUT....as defined by a court of law, not an English dictionary.

Law Library's definition of interrogation:

"A term that describes vigorous questioning, usually by the police of a suspect in custody. Other than providing his name and address, the suspect is [b]not obligated to answer the questions[/b], and the fact that he has remained silent generally cannot be used by the prosecution to help prove that he is guilty of a crime. [b]If the suspect has asked for a lawyer[/b], the police must cease questioning. If they do not, they cannot use the answers against the suspect at trial."
(The question is DID he request a lawyer for questioning of only IF he took a polygraph, thus making his polygraph results inadmissible. Though he had apparently waied his right to an attorney the morning of the polygraph, in a courtroom).

Bouvier's law dictionary is a little better but still doesn't explicitly define interrgation as even Questa can be considered lagel torture in some countries.

So if he was probed for answers, he was interrogated, the question is DID he actually waive his rights, were his requests for legal representation regarding JUST the Polygraph or was it that he wanted a lawyer before responding to further questioning? If he then openly offered a confession,that then strengthens the issue being that legal counsel was only requested if a polyraph was conducted.

In which case, his polygraph MAY not be admissible but the confession would. It is purely impossible to for us to determine or even begin to pass judgement with the minicule amount of information that is shared publicly.

As I've said all along, IF he was intrerrogated; -Had he requested a lawyer and been refused or ignored?

-Had he been forced to speak further or did he offer further information?

-When he DID request a lawyer, was it only on the premise of taking a polygraph test? (which the transcrpt releases show was quite clearly defined)

It's not a question of whether or not the police interrogated him, it is more of an issue whether he had waived that right to see a lawyer, decided to knowingly ignore his rights and incriminate himself, or had specified he would want to practice that right only under specific circumstances.

Apparently, the court system isn't agreeing with your legal dictionary in terms of defining "interrogation". And btw, we're defining interrogation as it applies to Couey's case here in Florida based on US court decree. He's not going to be tried in Zambia.

According to yet another decision, the questioning did not have to be aggressive at all. This is from a Georgia state ruling based on Supreme Court precedent:

HIBBERT v. THE STATE.
A89A1905.
(195 Ga. App. 235)
(393 SE2d 96)
(1990)

"[T]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U. S. 291, 301-302 (100 SC 1682, 64 LE2d 297) (1980)."

Hence, when Couey requests counsel questioning should stop.

Then, the police ask about the lie detector, which is a direct aspect of the criminal case and is set to elicit incriminating statements from him. This is the violation. They were trying to coerce him into a lie detector. They should not have been asking anything else in relation to the case and only had passing, non-related dialogue until he offered something freely (and voluntarily waived his rights).

He then responds in kind to the question of a lie detector with a *second* request for counsel.

Hence, within 3 transcripted quotes, Couey had requested counsel in BOTH of his quotes.

BTW...every published excerpt from that transcript shows Couey asking at sometime during questioning for counsel. It doesn't matter when, and the first request does not show it was in relation to the lie detector. The officers bring that up following his request for counsel.

In addition, the Miranda Warning states that you have the right to invoke your right to the presence of counsel at any time in the process. According to court rule, officers should stop asking case-related questions at this point. They did not.

You even quote this:
"If the suspect has asked for a lawyer, the police must cease questioning. If they do not, they cannot use the answers against the suspect at trial."

It's obvious. The man asked for a lawyer. They asked him about taking a lie detector, which is clearly a question moving to elicit incriminating information from him. He says he wants a lawyer again. They broke proper, legal procedure.

But, I am going to try and settle this once and for all, in regards to what the contents of the questioning were if I can. I am requesting through the Public Records Act a copy of the full interrogation. I will see if Citrus County will give it to me.

I will get it, if they don't want to charge me an arm and a leg for printing it. It is supposedly 800 pages of transcription. I'll also see if it's available in electronic format.

Oh...and...BTW...WFLA-TV reported this morning that the public defender is going to file for dismissal of the confession. Guess the police must have done something wrong, in his estimation.

Normally I'd be in favor of any interpretation or ruling that favors the rights of private individuals. I think Miranda rights are important because of the maze of laws that can make criminals out of people who don't know the legal way to climb a ladder (OSHA).

But murder isn't that complicated. The guy either killed somebody or did not. He either knows about the crime or does not, either was an accomplice or not. Those are the possibilities to the interrogating officers, and "trickery" really isn't necessary or relevant. I think when police place somebody under arrest they should be required to state the charges against the suspect immediately, and that our rights to freedom of speech already guarantee us the option of not answering any questions.

Lock 'im up, throw away the key.

I'd like to see that girl's dad get to take shots at him. That guy obviously (they have fingerprints from the trailer of hers, he knew every detail of how she was buried, what she was wearing,etc) is guilty. To let him go on a technicality like that would be out-and-out wrong.

Plus like I said, that girl's father is a country boy and I think a biker. I bet you anything if Couey walked free he'd be dead within a year.

Not you nor I nor anyone else who hasn't heard the evidence and been given instruction in the legal issues by a judge should make decisions. What the media writes is designed to sell papers or TV ads. It is sensationalistic and biased.

I don't believe in an eye for an eye, and I don't believe in capital punishment. The commandment doesn't read though shalt not kill, except.....

Technicalities are the price we pay for having a rule of law. Do you really want to go back to frontier justice?

You have no right to invoke my son. You've lost a lot of respect here. You are pond scum. How would you feel if I said the same thing about your neice or nephew - would you not find that manipulative? For the record, there are criminals living all over my community and yours. We don't have to like them but we have to have some respect for the system, if we expect to be treated fairly by the system should we find ourselves the accused.

You act like this case is unique. Its not, we have a similar discussion about Karla Homolka who along with her hubby killed two young girls after raping them, and caused the death of her own sister by drugging her so her hubby could rape her. She got a 12 year sentance, and is now living somewhere - reportedly Montreal but who knows.

To me, measuring the dollars and cents cost of incarceration is the wrong perspective. If it was all dollars and cents we would have no pollution controls on our cars, nor would we control industrial air pollution, dumping toxic waste etc. Yet we know the best thing for our society is to do these things. You may find it distasteful, but there is a price to be paid.

Ostrich? Far from it. But if the tiger as you say is in the cage for the rest of its life, I am not endangered. Lest you think I am some weak kneed ostrich, I have killed wild dogs in defense of livestock, up close and personal. I have killed animals for food on the farm. But a human being has a soul. I may personally despise that man but I cannot take his life unless its in an effort to save my own or someone else's life from a "clear and present danger".

James

Get real, James. Remember this little statement?:

"I know you were being funny, but as my son is 11, I don't particularly find it funny."

You evidently don't find it funny when you think of some sicko living near him either.

You invoked your son in this discussion before I did, man...so you're no better than me in that respect. It's okay for you use your son when he's convenient to back you in an argument, then chide anyone else who does. Hypocrite.

You can call me whatever you want. Fact remains: it would be okay for Couey to go free as long as it wasn't in your backyard.

Fact is, you (like any other parent) don't want those sickos around your kids, but you are like most other selfish-assed people nowadays who become more complacent with the existence of these sickos the farther away they are from you and the ones you care about in life.

If it had been your kid or even someone related or close to you, you'd want the sicko bastard Couey fried too without a second thought...guaranteed.

So...don't go talking about what's fair for Mark Lunsford or anyone else who lost a kid to one of these sickos. You're not in their shoes. You'd be as upset as that man and want him dead too despite what the legal system dictates or what you think being so detached from this case.

And yeah...I do advocate stringing up these sicko bastards that get a free room and 3 free meals and can get all the free advanced education they want for folding laundry 5 hours a day, after having undoubtedly raped and/or killed people.

And I'm really getting tired of reiterating the exact same point only to find out you are trying to argue something else entirely.

IF he OFFERED testimony, it is not considered questioning or interrogation.

But that is NOT, again NOT, I repeat once more.... NOT the question at hand here, but which which you are so adamant about defending regardless.

The problem is WAS he asking for a lawyer IF he was to take a polygraph test, according to the released trascript he most definitely was referring to a specific issue where he WOULD want representation, or was he requeting a lawyer before continuing with his confession?

When he was in court the VERY NEXT morning and BEFORE a polygraph was taken, he waived his rights to an attorney, at what point is he to be FORCED to consult an attorney?

HE said he wanted a lawyer IF he was to take a plugraph. HE DIDN't want an attorney after that time and while in court. IF he later took a polygraph, perhaps a lawyer should have been provided at THAT time, as that's when he said he would want one, but why did he not request or even DEMAND an attorney befor etaking that test and after he had given up that right in a courtroom?

Perhaps the polygraph woul dbe inadmissiblem he clearly said he wanted a lawyer for that test. But from the transcripts shown, at no time did he request a lawyer and decide to remain silent even after fully understanding his rights which were apprently read to him 7 times during three different interrogations.

In closing and for the VERY last time, it isn't that he requested a lawyer, it's WHY he requested a lawyer, WHEN and for what reasons that matter.

WAS his request for a lawyer before ANY further questioning completely ignored, or was it clearly defined that he wanted a lawyer IF he took a polygraph?

There is grey area here, but the law is black and white, no matter which side a decision falls on it will always be scrutinized, unless we take the confession verbatim when he specified and even clarified that hw wanted a lawyer if he was to take a polygraph, but never said as much regarding basic questioning regarding his confession. I think he's hanging onto a thread here, ANY way he can possibly get his condemning confession thrown out.

Mind you, they have DNA from the girls body and know that the person sexually molested her. They also have her fingerprints INSIDE a closet at Couey's house in addition to his loose lipped confession. I think the confessionat this time is becoming less and less relevant in the grand scheme of things, it will POSSIBLY be a factor in th esentencing, but I doubt he's gonna walk over it.

Oz,

The simple reason I keep reiterating what I'm saying is to try and get you to realize one thing:

The point of the excerpt from the interrogation showed he asked for an attorney before the police mentioned if he wanted one there only for a polygraph.

You are assuming the content of the conversation previous to his first request applied to a polygraph. However, I read it as Couey wanting an attorney present because he was being accused, not for a lie detector. Here's the excerpt one more time of his first request for counsel:

"I want a lawyer here present. I want to talk to a lawyer 'cause, I mean ... if people trying to accuse something I didn't do. I didn't do it."

He mentions nothing about a lie detector...he specifically mentions being accused. Then, the detective tries to narrow him down and asks:

"OK. Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. ... So if we were to do a lie detector test, you'd want to get a lawyer for that ?"

The cop is just basically trying to get him to give into saying he wants one for a lie detector, which legally would mean Couey only wanted one for the lie detector and would cover their butt. Then Couey says:

"I want to talk to a lawyer first."

That says to me...Couey wants to talk to a lawyer *before* the polygraph...not to get one to be present for the polygraph...which they never did for him.

You are reading into it that the conversation previous to his first request for counsel to have been about lie detectors. I'm not assuming that like you are. I'm going strictly by the words of the thing.

There's nowhere in that 3 lines they published that points to Couey only talking only about a lie detector. Only seems to me that the police investigator was trying to narrow him down to having one just for the lie detector and essentially waiving his right.

As I've said, I'm requesting the full transcript of the questioning from Citrus County. I'll see if they'll give it to me and I'll give you content previous to his first request for counsel if I can get it.

As I poisted above, there is more to that transcirpt than the article you posted provides, how convenient for thier story.

Another release of that transcript shows what he was asked BEFORE he said "I want an attorney";

"After being told by Couey that he knew nothing about Jessica Lunsford's disappearance, Grace (the arresting officer conducting questioning)asks him if he would take a lie detector test. Couey replied, "I guess. I'm just ? I want a lawyer, you know." He adds, "I want a lawyer here present. I want to talk to a lawyer cause I mean ? if people trying to accuse something I didn't do. I didn't do it. I ain't, you know ? ."

Grace responds by saying, "Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on ? so if we were to do a lie detector test, you'd want to get a lawyer for that?" Couey replies, "I want to talk to a lawyer first."

He was asked if he would be willing to take a polygraph BEFORE HE REQUESTED AN ATTORNEY, THAT is when he said he would want an attorney as you had quoted the transcript that was included with the article you are referring to. It was then further confirmed that he would want an attorney IF he was to take the test.

He didn't say as much before being asked about a polygraph test, he was speaking openly and freely until they mentioned a lie detector test.

That belief is the essential reason that standards of proof are so high in murder trials, and that is the way it should be.

The police know better than to ignore the rights of a suspect. It doesn't matter how "obviously guilty" he is. If a cop blows a case by breaking the rules, you blame that idiot cop, not the system that guarantees liberty to those who respect it, and justice even for criminals. No exceptions, otherwise the cops are exceptions to the law, not agents of it.