Pastor

[MMandM]

AP) - SELMER, Tenn.-Attorneys for a minister's wife accused of killing her husband in their small-town parsonage asked a judge Wednesday to throw out her statements to police, claiming she was arrested illegally.

 

For the applicable legal standard, see NEW YORK v. HARRIS, 495 U.S. 14 (1990):

 

Petitioner, who had been arrested without probable cause and without a warrant, and under circumstances indicating that the arrest was investigatory, made two in-custody inculpatory statements after he had been given the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 . Thereafter indicated for murder, petitioner filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements. The motion was overruled and the statements were used in the trial, which resulted in petitioner's conviction. The State Supreme Court, though recognizing the unlawfulness of petitioner's arrest, held that the statements were admissible on the ground that the giving of the Miranda warnings served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements, and petitioner's act in making the statements was "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 . Held:

 

1. The Illinois courts erred in adopting a per se rule that Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. When the exclusionary rule is used to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, it serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth, being directed at all unlawful searches and seizures, and not merely those that happen to produce incriminating material or testimony as fruits. Thus, even if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. Wong Sun requires not merely that a statement meet the Fifth Amendment voluntariness standard but that it be "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint" in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 600-603.

 

2. The question whether a confession is voluntary under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. Though the [422 U.S. 590, 591] Miranda warnings are an important factor in resolving the issue, other factors must be considered; and the burden of showing admissibility of in-custody statements of persons who have been illegally arrested rests on the prosecutor. Pp. 603-604.

 

3. The State failed to sustain its burden in this case of showing that petitioner's statements were admissible under Wong Sun. Pp. 604-605.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=495&invol=14

 

What about the facts surrounding the case of the pastor's wife? Was Mary Winkler taken into police custody (arrested) without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if so, were her statements sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the illegal arrest?

 

Here's an account of her statement:

 

SELMER, Tenn. - A minister's wife told police she shot her husband after they argued about family financial troubles related to an overseas scam and then told him "I'm sorry" as he lay dying on their bedroom floor, witnesses said at a bond hearing Friday.

 

Mary Winkler, 32, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her husband, Matthew, 31, and has been jailed without bond since March 23.

 

Matthew Winkler was killed March 22 at the couple's Church of Christ parsonage in Selmer, a small town 80 miles east of Memphis. Mary Winkler was taken into custody with the couple's three small children in Orange Beach, Ala., after a nationwide Amber Alert was issued for the children.

 

Judge Weber McCraw is expected to decide later, perhaps by next week, if he will set a bond. Prosecutors asked McCraw to keep Winkler, originally from Knoxville, in jail to await her trial scheduled in October.

 

Prosecutor Walter Freeland said Matthew Winkler was shot in the back from close range with a 12-gauge shotgun as he lay in bed, with the blast breaking his spine and tearing into internal organs.

 

"When she left, Matthew Winkler was still alive," Freeland said.

 

Brian Booth, an agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, read a statement Mary Winkler gave authorities in Alabama.

 

In that statement, she said her memory of the shooting was unclear and she did remember getting her husband's shotgun from a bedroom closet where she knew he kept it.

 

"The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom. I remember thinking it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be," Booth read from Winkler's statement.

 

Winkler told police her husband rolled from the bed onto the floor.

 

"He asked me why, and I just said 'I'm sorry,' " Booth read from the statement.

 

Winkler said the two had argued throughout the previous evening about several things, including family finances. The problems were "mostly my fault," she said, because she was in charge of keeping the family books.

 

"He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things - the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped," Booth read to the court.

 

Booth said that shortly before the killing Mary Winkler had deposited in family bank accounts checks totaling $17,500 from unidentified sources in Canada and Nigeria.

 

She shifted money between at least two banks in what he described as "check kiting."

 

The checks and money exchanges were not detailed in court, but defense lawyers said Mary Winkler was the victim of a financial scam

Edited May 26, 2007 by MarkInAlisoViejo

[Morganx]

Is this why people hate the others guys lawyer?

[JamesSavik]

This chick cut a pretty sweet deal for a murder in Alabama. It looks like she is trying to get a new trial which is a huge roll of the dice.

 

If a judge finds her guilty in a new trial, the previous plea is gone and she could be sentenced to life.