Attorney says incriminating statements by teen should be barred in trial

COLUMBUS -- A defense attorney for a 16-year-old Columbus boy accused of wounding six city teens in an Aug. 19 drive-by shooting argued Thursday that incriminating statements made by her client should be barred from any trial.

Attorney Melanie Knoepfle said her client was a “suspect” in the gang-related shooting as soon as he entered an interview room at Columbus Police Station to be interrogated by law enforcement authorities.

Police Investigator Bret Strecker knew the defendant’s car was involved in the drive-by shooting, which made the teen a suspect in the case, Knoepfle said during a Platte County District Court hearing on a defense motion to suppress her client’s statements made during questioning by authorities.

“The defendant was not a suspect when the interview began,” Strecker testified during questioning by Platte County Attorney Sandra Allen. “We were aware his car had been at the scene. It was possible he had been driving, but we weren’t sure.”

District Judge Robert Steinke heard testimony from two police officers and the defendant’s father during the more than 90-minute hearing on the defense motion. The judge took the motion under advisement.

The defense motion contends the defendant’s incriminating statements were “not made freely and voluntarily, were not the product of a rational intellect and free will, (and) were not made after a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights.”

The defendant has been in custody at the Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Detention Center in Madison since his August arrest.

Law enforcement authorities have said all the juveniles involved in the shooting are members of rival city street gangs.

Court documents say the defendant drove to the Carriage House Estates mobile home park with at least two other members of his gang. Once there, they covered their faces with handkerchiefs, and the defendant rolled down the passenger-side window of the car and fired the shotgun several times.

The defendant cooperated with law enforcement authorities during the investigation of the incident, admitting his involvement in the shooting offenses, according to court documents in the case.

The teen has been charged with attempted first-degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, five counts of second-degree assault and two counts of criminal mischief.

The defendant is the only person who has been charged in the case.

During the initial investigation of the shooting, witnesses had given police authorities the description of a vehicle involved that matched the defendant’s car, Knoepfle said on Thursday.

Because his vehicle may have been involved, the defendant was at least suspected of aiding and abetting the shooting when initially questioned by officers, Knoepfle said.

The defendant had come to the police station voluntarily, was told he didn’t have to answer questions, was not handcuffed or restrained in any way and was free to leave at any time, Strecker testified.

The defendant’s father was present for the entire interview and on several occasions urged his son to tell the truth about the shooting incident, the investigator said.

The defendant then made the admission that “he was the person who had actually done the shooting,” Strecker said. With that admission, the investigator said the defendant became a suspect in the case and was read his constitutional rights.

When the defendant admitted under questioning to having fired the shotgun, Strecker said he halted the interview to read the teen his constitutional warnings against self-incrimination.

After the defendant and his father signed a waiver of the teen’s rights, the defendant continued to make admissions about his involvement in the shooting, Strecker said. “I believe everybody in the room understood them (the defendant’s rights).”

Strecker said the teen was then arrested for attempted first-degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony in the shooting.

What is commonly known as the Miranda Warning is given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime.

A custodial situation is one in which the suspect’s freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest.

A defendant doesn’t have to be read his Miranda rights just because an interrogation takes place in a police station, Allen told the judge.

The defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and continued making admissions after being read the warning, she said.