DA Files Disclosure of Evidence Against Dominque Strauss-Kahn Filing:

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 08:39:00 AM EST
Tags: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

How long did police hold Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the office of a detectives' unit before formally arresting him, Mirandizing him and bringing him before a Judge? Why wasn't he brought to a jail to await the judge? Why did they wait until late Sunday afternoon to bring the accuser in for a lineup -- so they could make sure she had enough time to see his face plastered all over TV (which she did?)

Here's the Disclosure Statement the District Attorney filed today.

May 14:

4:40 pm: Police remove him from jetway
5:00 pm: Arrive at JFK Port Authority Precinct. He's handcuffed (in custody, not free to leave.)
5:15 pm: En route to Manhattan Special Victims Squad
5:40 pm: At Manhattan Special Victims Squad, still hasn't been able to call the consulate or a lawyer
9:00 pm: Still at Manhattan Special Victims Squad and still hasn't been able to call a lawyer. He asks them if he needs a lawyer. They answer, it's his right in this country. They add they don't know if he has any kind of diplomatic status. He says:
No, No, No, I'm not trying to use that. I just want to know if I need a lawyer
Answer: That's up to you.

10:55 pm: Still at the Manhattan Special Victims Squad, has talked to his lawyer, they still are asking him if he wants to talk, he says no.
11:20 pm: Still at Manhattan Special Victims Squad, they offer him something to eat.

[More...]

May 15

2:45 a.m.: Formally placed under arrest
9:00 am: Still at Manhattan Special Victims Squad, they offer him breakfast
9:20 pm: Still at the Manhattan Special Victims Squad, they offer food, he asks for sandwich
9:50 pm: Still at Manhattan Special Victims Squad. (last entry)

What happened between 9:00 am and 9:20 pm that warranted the detectives keeping him at their office instead of a jail?

Since when do the cops get to keep you at the detectives' bureau for ten hours before placing you under arrest, and then when you refuse to talk, for more than another 24 hours, instead of bringing you to a jail to wait to until your court appearance?

And what's up with the answer, "That's up to you" when he asked if he needs a lawyer? It's their duty to tell him not only that he has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning but that one will be provided at no charge if he can't afford one, before they question him. And no, they can't presume he can afford one because of who he is. They still have to make that advisement. Before they ask him any questions (other than completely unrelated questions like whether he wants to use the bathroom or something to drink or eat.)

What would have happened if at say 7pm on May 14, he declared he would not speak with them and demanded to be arrested or freed? Would they have claimed the right to hold him until a lineup was conducted? Even if they had that right, it sure shouldn't take 20 more hours to do it. (The lineup wasn't until 4:00 pm on the 15th.)

When you are arrested, you should be brought before a magistrate without delay. And if one isn't available, you should be brought to a jail, not the detectives bureau, to be put into interview rooms and questioned at their whim.

Above all, remember, keep your mouth shut. Don't try to talk your way out of it. Jails are filled with people who thought if they could only tell their side of the story, police would see it their way. It rarely happens.

Strauss-Kahn didn't make any incriminating statements about the offense, so there may not be anything to suppress. This is probably routine practice in New York but that's unfortunate. When cops make an arrest, they should bring the person to jail to wait (in peace) for his court appearance. Miranda rights exist for a reason.

< Thursday Open Thread | "The President Has No Power To Declare A War" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

DA Files Disclosure of Evidence Against Dominque Strauss-Kahn Filing: | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Interesting that even someone as worldly (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ruffian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:05:04 AM EST

as DSK would wonder for a second if he needed a lawyer in this situation. I'm surprised he even asked the question.

Note to self: If I'm in handcuffs, I need a lawyer.

While I don't disagree with you, TL (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scribe on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 07:37:20 AM EST

on reading the discovery you quote and in light of recent Roberts Court precedent, I think the cops were probably right down the middle on his Miranda (and sequelae) rights.

Recall that the S.Ct. recently decided that silence in the face of questioning was not to be interpreted as invocation of Miranda, but rather that a defendant has to affirmatively invoke his right not to speak. And, FWIW, I think the existing precedent also allows police to continue asking a defendant whether that defendant wants to talk to them.

And, finally, I think the cops' response to his questions about whether he needs a lawyer was another one right down the middle: they would view their job as reading the Miranda rights card (i.e., you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford one one will be appointed for you) but would view the defendant's decision as to whether the defendant feels he needs one as a decision only the defendant can make and one they should not be involved in. It's kind of akin to asking a cop, post auto accident, for a referral to a good towing service. At best, they'll point you to the Yellow Pages, but will not say "do go to this one" or "don't go to that one" because either one would be viewed as the government endorsing one or another course of action or commercial enterprise.

And, as final notes, (A) the commenter upthread who noted to self that "I'm in handcuffs, therefore I need a lawyer." got it right, and (B) if this particular defendant is that unsophisticated/unintelligent we're in a heck of a lot more trouble than anyone could have anticipated and (C) if he didn't say anything, there's nothing to suppress and all this discussion is just so much us chasing our own rhetorical tails. He was in front of a judge for arraignment within 48 hours (what precedent requires) and the NY Supreme Court will likely view his being held in the police station as opposed to Rikers as a bit of grace and favor the ordinary defendant would not have received.

: As I (4.33 / 3) (#9)
by lentinel on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 07:50:00 AM EST

read the filing, I would say that the police were less than forthcoming about his right to an attorney.
As you know, Miranda states:
"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him."
From the transcript, he was not clearly informed that he had a right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him in court.
The specifics about his right to have an attorney present during questioning were also not spelled out.
I think that the police did a somewhat sloppy job.
What's so damn hard about quoting Miranda accurately and completely to a defendant?

Even as I will always (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Nemi on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 07:53:19 AM EST

feel discomfort when females defend an alleged rapist (nothing personal J.) I do find it comforting and a sign of a just society when even the worst scumbags (not necessarily relating to Strauss-Kahn) have the right to being defended in court.

For a layman as myself it's always very interesting and enlightening to learn about how the "system" - and the mind of the defense - works. And I much prefer this real life/ realistic stuff to tv shows.

with the exception of any possible (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by cpinva on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:35:47 AM EST

adverse results from a line-up ID, i'm not clear as to what else could possibly be suppressed by a court? of course, if he did make incriminating statements, during his time in the police station (which doesn't appear to be the case so far), that would be an entirely different issue.

frankly, i suspect being kept in the police station, vs being put in jail, was actually a less unpleasant experience.

Probably DSK's initial claim of immunity (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 11:43:46 AM EST

Probably DSK's initial claim of immunity in large part led the police to act as they did. Somehow and at some time, they ascertained he didn't have immunity and then acted in a way that we consider fairly normal.

As for DSK's indecision about a lawyer and such, I believe that he was still hoping that somehow the whole affair would go away or idle down considerably. DSK was hoping that somehow the normal France type system which he was familar with would come into play and he would be treated with the respect his position, his education, and his connections entitled him to and that he had become acclimated to in his own country.

In that light, his responses and to a certain degree the police's responses make a lot more sense.

... and his gender (none / 0) (#14)
by Nemi on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:27:15 PM EST

... he would be treated with the respect his position, his education, and his connections entitled him to and that he had become acclimated to in his own country.

: Oops - my faux pas. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 09:19:16 PM EST

Thanks, you are correct Nemi.

Of course I should already know the (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:35:28 AM EST

answer, but, if a person who is not a citizen of the United States is detained w/i the U.S., it that person entitled to Miranda warning?

Was this suspect handcuffed while he was at the detective's bureau?

Yes Miranda rights apply to all (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 01:16:49 AM EST

he was handcuffed throughout since 5pm when still at JFK.In a cell, he wouldn't have been handcuffed. Did they remove them so he could eat and use the bathroom, maybe. But several times he complained they ere to tight.


Are Miranda rights required if you aren't under (none / 0) (#13)
by republicratitarian on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 02:07:02 PM EST

arrest but still being detained? He was detained and not formally arrested for 10 hours. Are any statements made during that time admissible? I see he didn't make any statements.


Yes, Miranda's protections apply (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:55:31 PM EST

whenever a person is in police custody -- however labeled -- and a reasonable person in that situation would not feel that s/he was free to leave.


: Standard is would a reasonable person (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 05:36:00 PM EST

have felt free to leave, correct? Not what police say or this individual thinks.

The media's disconnect: (none / 0) (#3)
by lentinel on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 05:02:46 AM EST

The text from the statement:

He asks them if he needs a lawyer. They answer, it's his right in this country. They add they don't know if he has any kind of diplomatic status. He says:
No, No, No, I'm not trying to use that. I just want to know if I need a lawyer

The headline on Huffington Post screams:

Ex-IMF Chief Claimed Diplomatic Immunity After Being Arrested

You should probably read the linked filing (none / 0) (#5)
by Rojas on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:19:28 AM EST

He does claim to have diplomatic immunity and asks to speak to the French Consulate right after they place him in handcuffs at the port authority office at the airport.
It's not clear if or when he received a Miranda warning from this document. I would hope it would be before they took him off the plane.


Thanks (none / 0) (#6)
by lentinel on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:27:00 AM EST

for the info.

I will read the link.

But I am wondering whether what he is quoted as saying, "No, no, no. I'm not trying to use that (diplomatic status)" is accurate.


: Yes it's there too (none / 0) (#7)
by Rojas on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 06:30:21 AM EST

Later on.

All non-citizens who are arrested in this country (none / 0) (#16)
by Peter G on Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:59:50 PM EST

have the right under the Vienna Convention to confer with a consular official of their own country. His request to speak with someone from the French Consulate is unrelated to the question of whether he enjoys, or invoked, any sort of diplomatic immunity. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court says that the failure of the police to honor that right does not require suppression of subsequently provided or discovered evidence.


: I did not intend to (none / 0) (#19)
by Rojas on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 09:38:23 AM EST

imply that it did.
As someone who travels out of the country a fair amount I have always assumed asking to see the US Consulate would be the first thing that I would do if arrested in another country. Perhaps that is a very ignorant position, but it's not something I think many people give much consideration to. The company says you need to go somewhere and you go.
I think expecting DSK to be sophisticated with regards to US jurisprudence simply because of his position with the IMF is a weak argument. Perhaps he is, but quite frankly I think most US citizens really would have no clue if in a similar position.