Instructions:
This discussion will be completed in two parts and will give you an opportunity to reflect upon this week’s content and to interact with your classmates.
Case of Michael Crowe
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0tdOWZK4AA – Michael Crowe Confession Footage
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp1LVciP2c – Michael Crowe Case Part 1 of 3
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJcqjPxtIXc – Michael Crowe Case Part 2 of 3
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USxjvOt9kBI – Michael Crowe Case Part 3 of 3
Read through the case and watch the video excerpts. Respond to the following:
- What went wrong?
- Based on the attached police policy and what you read, should the police have more restrictions on juvenile interrogations?
- What could be done to avoid what happened with Michael Crowe?
SAMPLE POLICE POLICY
All juveniles taken into custody shall be advised of the nature of the crime in which they are suspected. Prior to any in-custody interview, all juveniles shall be advised of their Miranda Rights in Juvenile Miranda format and in accordance with the Scales decision. The child’s physical condition, age, intelligence, educational level, prior experience with the juvenile justice system, and ability to comprehend the meaning and effect of statements should be carefully evaluated in each case.
The officer/investigator shall document the interview in a corresponding CAPRS statement.
Officers and investigators may allow a parent/legal guardian to be present during an interview of their child, if the presence of the parent/legal guardian is not deemed to be coercive or inhibiting.
If the juvenile refuses to be interviewed, investigators may re-approach at another time. If the juvenile requests an attorney, all questioning and contact must cease. A juvenile who has consulted with or retained an attorney (i.e. public defender at JDC), cannot be contacted without approval of that attorney.
First reply :In this module discussion we are asked to answer the question “what went wrong” involving the murder investigation of Stephanie Crowe. After viewing the interrogation video and then reading the report by correspondent Bill Lagattuta, my first reaction was, what didn’t go wrong or was there anything done right? The murder investigation was rife with investigative errors, but I’ll concentrate on the three I found most glaring.First, the detectives failed to consider all the possibilities of who could have committed the murder of Stephanie Crowe. Detectives seemed to focus their investigation more on Michael Crowe, Josh Treadway, and Aaron Hauser rather than Richard Tuite, who was confirmed to be in the area the evening before the murder. Second, the detectives failed to conduct a thorough investigation. Failing to carefully examine the red sweatshirt worn by Tuite was a crucial mistake. Ironically, it was this DNA evidence that ultimately exonerated Michael, Josh, and Aaron. Finally, the interview of Michael Crowe was hard to watch. The conduct of the investigators, as stated, was nothing short of psychological torture and child abuse. It was clear Detective Chris McDonough and his partner failed to follow department policy regarding the interrogation of juveniles. Neither detective took into account Michael’s age, intelligence, prior experience with the juvenile justice system, or his ability to comprehend the meaning and effects of his statements. It was clear that Michael was showing signs of a mental breakdown and he was in no condition to be questioned further. Can we reasonably expect a shy, fourteen-year-old boy to understand the gravity of his statements, when placed under such intense pressure by two overbearing detectives for ten hours? Without question the answer is no. Simply, Michael Crowe should have had his parents and/or an attorney present during the interrogation. Further, as a self-described “seasoned homicide investigator” you would think Detective McDonough would know what statements on his behalf constitute coercion. It was clear that he gave Michael Crowe “two paths”; admit guilt and not be criminally charged or deny his involvement and suffer punishment in an adult prison. These statements are clearly coercive, and thus are inadmissible in court.I’m sure if Michael’s parents and/or an attorney would have been present, the interrogation would not have been conducted in the manner in which it was, and almost certainly would have been terminated. Unfortunately, information wasn’t provided as to why Michael’s parents allowed him to be interviewed in the first place. This investigation is a good example of why police should have more restrictions on the manner in which they conduct juvenile interrogations. Additionally, I found it inconceivable that Summer Stephen, the former prosecutor overseeing the investigation would have actually charged Michael, Aaron and Josh after viewing the interrogations. Unfortunately, from the manner in which all three juveniles were treated and the way the case proceeded through the court system, it appears this type of coercive conduct was readily accepted in Escondido, California at the time. The interrogation of Michael Crowe exemplifies why the United States Supreme Court extended greater constitutional rights to juveniles. The right to have counsel present, the right of due process, and safeguards against self-incrimination are but just a few of the rights granted to juveniles to ensure that they are treated fairly, are not charged without sufficient probable cause, and ultimately receive a fair trial. As a result, both law enforcement and prosecutors are aware that constitutional violations will be challenged.What can be done to ensure that this type of injustice doesn’t happen to other juveniles? First, I believe that all police agencies must have a policy in place that requires the presence of a parent or counsel when officers are interrogating a juvenile, especially crimes involving felony offenses.Second, I believe officers are (and in some instances prosecutors) in need of more training when it comes to conducting interviews and interrogations, especially involving juveniles. If the Michael Crowe interrogation is any indicator, the training is sorely needed. Finally, I believe those of us with the judicial system have to be more understanding when conducting interviews with juvenile offenders. As pointed out in the video, this line of adversarial questioning is not conducive to obtaining the truth in most circumstances and can actually cause some juveniles to make untruthful statements. As I have said before, police officers are not perfect. What makes the injustice done to Michael Crowe, Aaron Hauser, and Josh Treadway even more tragic is when individuals cloaked with the power to take away an individual’s liberty can’t find it in their heart to say I’m sorry.
Second :The first thing that went wrong with the Michael Crowe interrogation was that the officers did not allow Michael to have his parents or a lawyer present while he was being questioned. The officers are shown telling Michael about his rights, but I do not think that Michael understood that he had the right to an attorney. In the beginning, it did not seem like Michael knew he was being questioned for the murder of his sister. Another problem with the interrogation was that the officers were trying to coerce Michael into confessing. The officers were giving Michael false information, trying to get him to confess, even after he told the officers that he did not know what happened to his sister and that he did not commit the murder. The officers lied about having evidence to the point where Michael said that he must have done it when he in fact did not commit the murder. The officers also lied to Michael, stating that his parents hated him for killing his sister, making him believe the officers were the only people who were trying to help him and look out for him.Yes, I believe that police should have more restrictions when interrogating juveniles. I believe that juveniles should have their parents in the room with them when being interrogated or have a lawyer present. I believe that most, if not all, juveniles do not understand their Miranda rights and should have someone present who does.As I previously stated, Michael Crowe should have had his parents or a lawyer present during questioning. Michael clearly did not waive his rights to be questioned, which means his Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The officers coerced Michael into making incriminating statements, which turned out to be inadmissible during the court case.
Third:Wow, some parts of those videos was hard for me to watch. My first thought was everything about the interview process was wrong. They lied, manipulated, coached, and corrupted that poor child. He was physically showing signs of a breakdown, anxiety, nervousness, and confusion. The detectives first went wrong by not making sure he understood his rights. At his age I don’t believe he fully understood what was happening when he fasly confused to the murder of his sister. The detectives were giving him the options of harsh juvenile prison for not admitting to the crime or help if he was to admit. I feel child could look at this and think maybe if I say I did it then they will help me or I will get to go home. A child that age does not through understand what he is supposed to do or not supposed to do in this situation. Plus having adults pushing him and telling him did things that he repeatedly told them he didn’t, must become very agitating. In our text it talks about considering factors such as the type of crime committed, the evidence, prior record, experience in the juvenile system, and other physical factors sush as age and race. (pp 197 – 198). The detectives in this situation I feel didn’t take anything into consideration other than trying to get this young man to confess. Also, I don’t understand why the parents didn’t tell the police no you cannot talk to our kids without one of us being there as well. I feel like maybe they were too upset and distraught and wasn’t obviously thinking things all the way through. I feel there needs to be a more clear set of implications when it comes to interrogerating juveniles. I think the wording of having an attorney present is their right needs to be explained to them further. In our text it also reads about juveniles and their need for the expedited or accelerated criminal process (pp 216 – 217). I do feel there is a need for the accelerated process as a young juvenile time can be used to get them back on the right track instead of waiting around for them to be sentenced. Also juveniles having birthday and becoming of legal age has to be taken into consideration. I feel the officers need to make sure the parents or an attorney is present. They need to take into consideration their age, what the crime is, and how the process has gone thus far with the offenders. They need to make sure the juveniles understand their rights and what they are. Also, they need to use appropriate techniques when questioning them so the confession they do obtain can be used.
0 comments