Pritcher stepped around the defense table. “We are, Judge. Our motion on suppression of the admissions sets out the issues very clearly. The police, when they discovered the body of Patty Winchester, had no witnesses and no real evidence to indicate my client had anything to do with this crime. They had heard that he was seen with her at a bar in Las Vegas and that was it. Under Thompson versus Keohane and laid out plainly in our motion, the court must look at whether the interrogation was voluntary, where it took place, and the mental state of the suspect at the time of the interrogation. In this instance, as is shown on the video we submitted as evidence, the detective makes it clear that my client is not free to leave when he asks if he can go. The interrogation took place at a police station after my client was put in a police car and driven there. As I’m sure Your Honor saw on the video, my client was highly inebriated at the time of this interrogation, calling into question whether he had the wherewithal to even agree to a voluntary interview as the State is proposing.”

I jumped in and said, “While I like fantasy as much as the next guy, Your Honor, in Yarborough versus Alvarado, the Court clearly states that the individual mental state, age, or personal attributes of the defendant are not factors for a trial court to consider in finding whether an interview was custodial. In fact, it lays out that the test is whether or not a reasonable person would feel free to leave. If you look at the video again, the defendant says he’d like to leave and the detective says, ‘Not yet.’ He doesn’t say no, he doesn’t physically restrain him, and at no point was the defendant told he was under arrest or had handcuffs placed on him. Not yet can be understood by its plain meaning in everyday language as an admission that he is free to leave but the detective would like him to stay longer to answer a few more questions voluntarily.”

“That’s an adorable interpretation of the facts, Your Honor, but JDB versus North Carolina again visited the issue and found that a child’s age is a factor in determining custodial interrogation. Because the child is considered vulnerable to police persuasion. Here you have a similar circumstance in that my client was so inebriated he could barely keep his eyes open and you have a detective telling him he’s not free to leave yet. I think the plain meaning of not yet is a de facto no. I don’t think Miranda could’ve been more clearly violated had I tried to make a fictional scenario, and the fact that Mr. Graham is even arguing this shows how desperate the State is in twisting the facts to get an innocent—”