08-24-01

Dumb Crooks^TM

An accused car thief in Woodbury committed the cardinal sin of thievery last week by returning to the scene of the crime.

But 20-year-old Derrick Lee Spillman of Minneapolis put his own unique twist on the blunder -- he returned to the scene after he had been arrested and the car had been returned.

Posing as his "identical twin" brother.

Asking for the return of the .38-caliber handgun he had left in the car.

Spillman's saga began shortly after 12:30 a.m. Friday, when he slipped into a white Jeep Cherokee that was parked -- unlocked and with the keys on the driver's side floor -- in a driveway on the 3200 block of Camelot Drive in Woodbury.

The Jeep's owner was watching television on the living room couch when he heard a car running outside. He called police after seeing his car pull out of the driveway, and Spillman was pulled over just minutes later. He was arrested and released with the understanding that he would appear in court on Monday.

Since Spillman had only been in the car a short time, officers allowed the owner to inspect the car and take it home when no damage was found. That cursory search did not turn up the .38-caliber handgun that Spillman allegedly had stashed in the Jeep's center console.

The Jeep's owner found the gun the next morning and immediately called police, who picked up the gun.

Later Friday, according to a complaint filed in Washington County District Court, Spillman returned to the home from which he had stolen the Jeep less than a day earlier.

According to the complaint, Spillman told the Jeep's owner that his twin brother had stolen the car and had left Spillman's handgun in it. Could he, Spillman asked, have the gun back?

Spillman did not get the gun. He got an additional charge of possessing a pistol without a permit to add to the felony auto-theft count.

Spillman's next court appearance is scheduled for Sept. 12.

Copyright ©2000 Dumb Crooks
Www.DumbCrooks.com
Used with permission

Official Information

(a) A public servant commits an offense if, in reliance on information to which he as access by virtue of his office or employment and that has not been made public, he:

(1) acquires or aids another to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise that may be affected by the information;

(2) speculates or aids another to speculate on the basis of the information; or

(3) as a public servant, including as a principal of a school, coerces another into suppressing or failing to report that information to a law enforcement agency.

(b) A public servant commits an offense if with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he discloses or uses information for a nongovernmental purpose that:

(1) he has access to by means of his office or employment; and

(2) has not been made public.

(c) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he solicits or receives from a public servant information that:

(1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and

(2) has not been made public.

(d) In this section, “information that has not been made public” means any information to which the public does not generally have access, and that is prohibited from disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.

(e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class C misdemeanor.

Legal Issues - Confession

A man reported to the sheriff’s office that his home had been burglarized, and that his wife and 16-month-old daughter were missing. Acting on a tip that the defendant, who lived across the street from the burglary victims, was involved in a crime, officers questioned the defendant. He denied involvement.

After the defendant had been arrested on an unrelated charge, he was questioned again about the burglary. This time, the man admitted that he had committed the burglary, but denied any knowledge of the disappearances.

The defendant was indicted for the burglary and a lawyer was appointed to represent him on that charge. The lawyer agreed to allow investigators to question the defendant again about the missing mother and daughter.

On two separate occasions, the defendant was interrogated abut the disappearances, and both times he denied being involved. Eventually, the defendant was released on bond in the burglary case. While living with his father, he confessed to him that he had killed the woman during the burglary.

The defendant’s father reported this confession to the police. Investigators obtained an arrest warrant for the defendant, and took him into custody on the murder charges.

When questioned about the killings, the defendant confessed to killing the woman and child and burying their bodies in a wooded area behind the house he had burglarized. He later led police to the place where he had buried the bodies.

The defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. He appealed in part on the ground that his confession should have been suppressed because, at the time it was obtained, he was under indictment for a “factually related” crime, and that his right to counsel had attached.

Because the permission of his lawyer had not been obtained to conduct the interrogation that yielded the confession, the defendant argued that his right to counsel had been violated. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, and reversed the conviction. The State appealed the reversal.

HOLDING: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “offense specific.” “It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced, that is, at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings - whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.”

Therefore, a defendant’s right to counsel for confession purposes does not apply to all crimes with which he has been charged simply because it applies to some crimes. Some courts have held, however, that if the right to counsel applies to one crime, it also applies to all “factually related” crimes with which the defendant is charged.

Although the defendant in this case argued that an “offense-specific” rule would invite abuse by the police, every suspect who is interrogated while in custody must be warned of his rights against compelled self-incrimination, and the right to consult an attorney. The police scrupulously followed the Miranda rule before questioning the defendant.

Also, obtaining uncoerced confessions, even from persons who have been charged with other offenses, is “essential to finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law.”

While the Sixth Amendment attached only to charged “offenses,” an “offense” is not defined solely by the “four corners of a charging instrument.” Where a single act or transaction violates more than one criminal statute, courts must determine whether the separate statutes actually constitute the “same offense.”

Only if each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not, are the offenses not the “same.” When an offense is charged and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it also attaches to any other offenses that would be considered the “same” offense under this analysis.

When the defendant confessed to the murders, he had been indicted for burglary, and a lawyer had been appointed to represent him in that case. He had not been charged with the murders.

COMMENT: It is easy to lose sight of the right to counsel when interrogating a suspect. Miranda warnings are administered so routinely that an officer might not think about whether the right to counsel has attached, especially in a case involving a suspect who is believed to have committed multiple crimes. Once formal charges have been filed, or “adversary criminal judicial proceedings” have been initiated against an accused, the right to counsel comes into play without the accused having to ask for a lawyer. In this case, the defendant’s right to counsel clearly had attached by the time he was indicted for burglary. Any subsequent questioning on the burglary charge without consulting the defendant’s lawyer and obtaining a clear waiver of the right to counsel would have violated the Sixth Amendment. But here, the officers questioned the defendant about a different, yet related, offense that occurred during the same criminal transaction as the burglary. The Court applies the analysis from Blockburger v. U.S.284 U.S. 299, to determine if capital murder and burglary are actually the “same offense.” They clearly aren’t, but not just because they have different names. For example, if a suspect was charged with attempted murder of X, he couldn’t be questioned about the X if X dies on the grounds that attempted murder and murder aren’t the “same offense.” They are, for purposes of this analysis. Because the crimes in this case weren’t the “same” the police could question the defendant in the burglary about his involvement in two murders without violating the Sixth Amendment. Texas v. Cobb, 121 S.Ct. 1335 (2001)

Worst Jobs?

From the Chaplain - Marilyn Featherstone

A JOURNEY

We convince ourselves that life will be better when we have a baby, then another. When our kids are older. Then, we are frustrated that they are teenagers (we will certainly be glad when they are out of that stage). We tell ourselves that life will be complete when our spouse gets his or her act together, when we get a nicer car, when we retire…

We should stop waiting UNTIL our car or home is paid off;

our kids leave the house;

we go back to school;

we finish school;

we lose 10 lbs;

we gain 10 lbs;

we get a divorce;

it’s summer; it’s spring; it’s winter; it’s fall.

There is no better time than right now to be happy. Happiness is a journey, not a destination.

Cyber Space

The Internet has been the greatest boon to the proliferation of chain letters since the photocopy machine. Email messages, which can be copied and forwarded to multiple recipients with the click of a mouse button, are the ideal vehicle for this form of folklore. Small wonder that the Internet is glutted with messages that say "Forward this to everyone you know." For good or ill (and most experienced users would say the latter), chain letters have become an online fact of life.