|
Posted on 03/06/2002 6:27:23 PM PST by FresnoDA
|
Lawyers for David Westerfield filed papers in court Tuesday saying that the detectives attempted to talk with Westerfield last Wednesday, the day after he was charged with kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. The lawyers called the action “outrageous government misconduct,” and wrote that it jeopardized Westerfield’s right to effective counsel.
Defense experts say the law is clear: once a suspect has a lawyer, police and prosecutors should not attempt to talk with the defendant without getting permission from the lawyer. Some say the incident could harm the case against Westerfield.
"It sends a lot of messages, in addition to laying the groundwork for potentially asking the court to dismiss the charges because of this outrageous governmental conduct," criminal defense specialist Kerry Steigerwalt said.
Wednesday, Police Captain Ron Newman told NBC 7/39 that two detectives did request to speak with Westerfield, but he apparently refused to talk with them and called his lawyer to report the attempted interview.
"I have confirmed that that did happen,” Capt. Newman told NBC 7/39. “I question the appropriateness of it. I'm sure the detectives felt that it was the appropriate thing to do, given the set of circumstances that they were under. But we will be handling that internally. So it's not something that we would normally do. In fact, we should not be doing it, frankly.”
Another legal expert told NBC 7/39 that if police did not actually talk with Westerfield that day, there's little damage to the case against him.
· In reference to the Dehesa site, the van Dams offer the following public comment:
“Although we have publicly shared our own raw emotions about the site where our daughter’s body was found, it was never our intention that the remembrances left there be moved to another location. We are asking for that to be discontinued. We deeply, deeply appreciate the love and support of each person, and of the greater, unified community. In our time of sorrow, we don’t wish others any additional sorrow – neither those who choose to visit this site, nor those who were trying to focus the attention elsewhere. We understand that there are many ways to work through grief, and we recognize that this is not just about our loss, but also about a community’s loss and pain. We encourage people to follow their own hearts and path, and do not wish to interfere with that process. Nothing will detract from the anguish we feel missing Danielle, or from the beautiful expression of love that has been manifested in the past four weeks.”
Brenda & Damon van Dam
Ahhh.....isn't that special.....
The evidence can be examined by the defense. The disk files can be compared and dated well enough to verify their authenticity, or prove tampering. So can the blood/DNA work. The SDPD certainly didn't hold the body somewhere and then place it. They also wouldn't cooperate with any scheme the vanDams might have attempted. John Gacey pleaded innocent also...with 30 bodies buried under his house. He claimed he didn't know how they got there. Amazing!
It is appalling that the tragic murder of Danielle van Dam has been a political godsend for District Attorney Paul Pfingst. That he exploited it to his own advantage only makes the situation more deplorable.
Pfingst may have compromised the case. The Rules of Professional Conduct limit what a prosecutor may reveal to the public prior to trial. A prosecutor may disclose only the name of the defendant, the charges that have been filed and the dates of pending court appearances.
In his quest for publicity, Pfingst went well beyond that. He offered his opinion about the strength of the case against David Westerfield, discussed Westerfield's criminal record and revealed details about the evidence, including facts known only by the police and the little girl's killer. Perhaps most outrageous was his revelation that Westerfield failed a polygraph examination, which is not even admissible in trial.
What will be the ultimate result of Pfingst's conduct? Will a change of venue motion be granted, requiring the extraordinary expenses and complications of trying the case in another county? Will some kook pop up giving a plausible confession, citing facts and circumstances he has gleaned from the press, further complicating an already complex case? Will yet another recusal motion be granted against the district attorney's office, resulting in the attorney general having to pick up the case?
STEPHEN R. ANEAR
Rancho Santa Fe
An interesting Op Ed in the Union Trib.....
In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which made it illegal to own or distribute anything that appears to be a pornographic image of a child under 18. This would include an otherwise-innocent photo of a child, manipulated to appear to be nude and/or engaged in sexual activity, or a sexually-related photo of an adult intended to look like a sexually-related photo of a child. Virtual child pornography is, by definition, an illusion.
The most compelling rationale for the law was that authorities can't easily tell the difference between real child pornography and virtual child pornography. The counter-argument is that it's the prosecution's burden to prove an illegal act has taken place.
He's in a political fight for his job. Bad, bad timing and another layer of "hmmmm" in this case.
My point is, do they have enough? I bet they don't. They were looking to make a arrest. PCR may have even matched a family member. They took DNA from everyone, I understand, so those tests should be comming back soon. Maybe that is why things are so quiet.
Hmmmmm.....interesting thoughts.
I realize that it may be nothing more than coincidence, but it is likely that Pfingst was very anxious for an arrest before yesterday's vote.
It is also weird, as has been noted, that he talked so much about the particulars.....very out of character for a District Attorney.
Despite their appearance of confidence, I think the prosecution is worried.
Not really, when you consider that it is a political position.
Excellent Point!...And if mom had been in motorhome?
Dried Bloodstains See Leather...
Where is the autopsy report, one week and counting...?
True, but he still should have known to remain general and not gotten into specifics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
