March 22, 2018
Amanda Hawkins’ lawyer has filed the Motion to Suppress in favor of Hawkins.
The motion states, “The actions of law enforcement officers violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the Defendant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and under Article 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.”
“On or about June 8, 2017, the Defendant was subjected to interrogation and questioning by law enforcement. During the interrogation, Defendant made several inculpatory statements. Although the initial portion of the Defendant’s interrogation may have begun as non-custodial, the interrogation quickly became custodial. The Defendant was not given her mandatory statutory warnings as required under Art. 38.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendant submits that inculpatory or incriminating portions of the June 8, 2017 interrogation were custodial and that the Article 38.22 warnings required. These warnings were not given and the statement is inadmissible.”
“On or about June 12, 2017, soon after the Defendant’s June 8, 2017 illegal interrogation, law enforcement again interrogated Defendant, obtaining additional incriminating statements from Defendant. Said interrogation and incriminating statements were made after Defendant’s arrest and while Defendant was in custody. This interrogation was basically a repeat of the prior interrogation and obtained substantially the same statement and information given by Defendant during her illegally obtained June 8, 2017 confession. Although Defendant was advised the Art 38.22 warnings during the June 12, 2017 interrogation, such warnings came too late and did not attenuate or cure the taint of the previous illegally obtained statement. Both statements were taken illegally and are inadmissible.”
“At commencement of the June 12, 2017 custodial interrogation and before any questioning by law enforcement, Defendant made a request for legal counsel. Defendant affirmatively raised the issue of having counsel and specifically asked when she would get an attorney. This request was essentially ignored. Law enforcement advised that she would have a lawyer after one was appointed by the Court. Officers failed to advise Defendant that she did not have to wait for formal appointment of counsel by the Court. Defendant was not advised that she was entitled to immediate legal representation, appointed or otherwise.”
“Immediately upon Defenant requesting counsel, by affirmatively asking for an attorney, the interrogation should have ceased and Defendant’s request honored.”
“Said request was side-stepped by law enforcement and Defendant advised that she would get a court-appointed attorney if and when an attorney was appointed by the Court.”
“The moment Defendant requested counsel, the interrogation should have been instantly suspended until counsel was made available by Defendant. This did not occur. The interrogation was not interrupted and continued until Defendant made a full confession. Said confession should be suppressed.”
“The statements obtained from Amanda Kristiene Hawkins were obtained in violation of foregoing provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and in violation of the right of Amanda Kristene Hawkins pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution.”
“Therefore, Defendant requests that the following matters be suppressed at trial of this cause: All statements and confessions made by Amanda Kristene Hawkins to any law enforcement officers or others in connection with this case, and any testimony by the arresting officer or any other law enforcement officers or others concerning any such statements. Any other matters that the Court finds should be suppressed upon hearing of this motion.”
“Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant prays that the Court suppress such matters at trial of this cause, for such other and further relief in connection therewith that is proper.”
“Wherefore, premises considered, the Defendant prays that the Court consider this Motion at the next regularly scheduled pre-trial hearing, or such time as the Court deems appropriate and the Court enter an Order excluding the matters made the basis of this Motion”
Join the conversation
All content © 2019 GHM or their respective parties. All rights reserved.