ILNews

Police questioning gets conviction booted a second time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The child molesting conviction of a Lafayette man has again been overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals because of problems with statements he made to police.

Ryan Bean was convicted in 2010 of Class A felony child molesting for abusing his daughter, H.B. That conviction was thrown out when the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled his confession was obtained in violation of Miranda rights.

Bean went voluntarily with Carroll and White county detectives to the Lafayette police station under the impression he was going to be questioned in connection with an investigation about child pornography. When the questioning turned to allegations made by his daughter, Bean invoked his right to counsel but the police did not honor his request.

During his retrial, the prosecutor called White County Sheriff Patrick Shafer to testify. Defense counsel objected, noting the admission of Bean’s interview at the first trial caused the second trial.

The trial court also expressed concern that even by narrowly questioning Shafer about the investigation process, the prosecutor could give the jury the impression that Bean said something to police. This, in turn, could penalize Bean for invoking his right against self-incrimination.

The prosecutor proceeded and asked Shafer about the pretrial investigation methods.

Bean appealed, asserting the prosecutor committed misconduct by having Shafer testify and by reinforcing in his closing arguments the vouching testimony from H.B.’s mother and the Indiana Department of Child Services investigator.

Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals found Shafer’s testimony punished Bean for exercising his Miranda rights.

“But most importantly, Sheriff Shafer’s testimony invited the jurors to speculate about what occurred during his interview with Bean – it implied either that he interviewed Bean and that Bean was silent or that Bean spoke during the interview but for some unknown reason, jurors were not permitted to hear what he said,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the court. “Both implications were improper – a prosecutor may not make a statement that a jury may reasonably interpret as an invitation to draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence … and this Court had already held that Bean’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated during his pretrial interview, making the substance of this interview inadmissible.”

The Court of Appeals found Bean was denied a fair trial and reversed his conviction in Ryan E. Bean v. State of Indiana, 91A02-1310-CR-912. In a footnote, the court stated Bean may be retried.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT